parm ehiechetor sy apt es ; te % teddies Ealed: t 
edie 2 lai ed wean pers ee eats Wed gH AT Sirects - r . paint See. Feo perc eet 
itera eens , ae Spat e ma sae et 
4 fe eg ne) an reens 
Sites pevpimatennte : ae Fees pen i 
Frys AE 7 ates ewe od 4 % 
eat separ fea. : 


s} 
aga! 
5 


‘ 


ap 
ah sah 
agarebs 
heey 
se 
peed 


t 
a 


% 


oa 
eEoes 
Peis) 


rei 
reer 


si eeey 
a 


Beriere 
ences 
ass Fy se eee 


Ay 


VORA 
ei eieeee 


Sart 
pay 


Sars 


aan 


mrt reat 


A a 


fb SEP 20 1919: } 
NG, BSS 


7 


Oe 


~ 
toe; 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/divinetrinitydogOOpohl_0 


DOGMATIC THEOLOGY 
Il 


THE POHLE-PREUSS SERIES OF DOG- 


MATIC TEXT-BOOKS 


God: His Knowability, Essence and At- 
tributes. vi & 479 pp., $2.00 net. 

The Divine Trinity. iv & 297 pp., $1.50 
net. 

God the Author of Nature and the Su- 
pernatural. v & 365 pp., $1.75 net. 

Christology. iii & 310 pp., $1.50 net. 

Soteriology. iv & 169 pp., $1 net. 

Mariology. iv & 185 pp., $1 net. 

Grace: Actual and Habitual. iv & 443 
pp., $2 net. 
The Sacraments in General. Baptism. 
Confirmation. iv & 328 pp., $1.50 net. 
The Holy Eucharist. vi & 408 pp., $1.75 
net. 

The Sacrament of Penance. iv & 270 pp., 
$1.50 net. 

Extreme Unction. Holy Orders. Matri- 
mony. iv & 249 pp., $1.50 net. 

Eschatology. iv & 164 pp., $1 net. 

The Whole Set, $18 net. 


sah) BE PAP eo 
Kee > 
SEP 20 1919 
e x 
C4 ys y 
THE “AX osiear sew 


DIVINE TRINITY 


A DOGMATIC TREATISE 


BY " f 
we" 
THE RT. REV. MSGR. JOSEPH -POHLE, PH.D.) D.D.; 


FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY AT ST. JOSEPH’S SEMINARY, 
LEEDS, (ENGLAND) AND LATER PROFESSOR OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOLOGY 
IN THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA, 


ADAPTED AND EDITED 


BY 


ARTHUR PREUSS 


THIRD REVISED EDITION 


B. HERDER BOOK Co. 


17 Sour Broapway, Str. Louis, Mo 
AND 
68 GreaT RussELL St., Lonpon, W. C 


1919 


NIHIL OBSTAT. 
Sti. Ludovict, die 12 Junii 1915 
F. G. HOLWECK, 


Censor Librorum. 


IMPRIMATUR. 
Sti. Ludovict, die 12 Junitt 1915 
+ JOANNES J. GLENNON, 
Archiepiscopus Sti. Ludovici. 


Copyright, 19/1, 
by 
JOSEPH GUMMERSBACH 


All rights reserved 


Printed in U. S. A. 

First. edition, 1912 

Second edition, 1915 

Third edition, 1919 
BECKTOLD 


PRINTING BOOK MrG. Co. 
ST. LOUIS, U. S.A, 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


PAGE 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 


Part I. THe Hoty TRINITY IN Unity, 0R THE THREEFOLD 
PERSONALITY OF GoD . 
Cu. I. God’s Threefold Personality Proved ant eid 
Scripture .. 

§ 1. The Threefold Pabconality es God Foreshadowed 
in the Old Testament . 

§ 2. The Threefold Personality ue God's as Taught in 
the New Testament — Texts Treating of the 
Three Divine Persons Together 

§ 3. New Testament Texts Treating of the pine 
Persons Severally . . . Be Th Vly 

Art. 1. Of God the Father . 
Art. 2. Of God the Son . ‘ 
A. Christ’s Divine Sonship . 
B. The Divinity of Christ 
C. The Logos... anna 
Art. 3. Of God the poly Ghost Ni 
A. The Personality of the Holy Ghost ; 
B. The Hypostatic Difference Between the Holy 
Ghost and the Father and the Son . 
C. The Divinity of the Holy Ghost 


Cu. IL. The Blessed Trinity in Tradition 
§ 1. The Antitrinitarian Heresies and Their Conder) 
nation by the Church . 
Art. 1. Crass Monarchianism y 
Art. 2. The Modalism of Sabellius 
Art. 3. The Subordinationism of Arius and Mee 
donius 
§ 2. The Positive ueiion ha the Fits Pour Cad: 
SETIES INS Mires EAU eBoy ine Pape . 


lil 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 
PAGE 
Art. 1. The Holy Trinity in the Official Liturgy of 
the Early Church and the Private Prayers 
OF thes Faith Tabs ieee Gil arsnGin sme ys ana ee oes 
ArT. 2. The Ante-Nicene Fathers . . . Bolt a 
Art. 3. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Ravers REN GES Ls 
Cu. III. The Principle of the Blessed Trinity, or the _ 
Doctrine of the _Immanent Processions in the 


Godhead ,.. TOT 

§ 1. The Procession of a a hay the Pathe os 
Generation’ ii «p52 

§ 2. The Procession of the Holy Ghost fui the 
Father and the Son . . . 168 

ArT. I. The Heresy of the eck Sohiem aed ts 
Condemnation by the Church . . . . 168 


Art. 2, The Positive Teaching of Revelation . . 173 
Cu. IV. The Speculative Theological Development of the 


Dogma of the Trinity . . SAC a Nie aa 
§ 1. The Dogma in its Relation to Reteon Piet 194 
§ 2. Generation by Mode of Understanding and Bye 
tion by Mode of Will . . . Mi 202 
§ 3. The Divine Relations — Divine Bacon Migs 
§ 4. The Trinitarian Properties and Notions . . . 236 
§ 5. The Divine Appropriations and Missions . . . 244 
Part I]. Unity 1n Trinity, oR THE TRIUNITY oF Gop .. 253 
Cu. I. Oneness of Nature, or the Consubstantiality of 
the Dhree divine Persons uy iie 4 serie rae 255 
Sole aFitheismi and thesC hurchess witcchias Vals Muneteae 
§ 2. The Teaching of Revelation . . . . 264 
Cu. II. Oneness of External Operation of HA Three 
Divine Persons . . ers 


Cu. III. The Unity of Mutual fiaenea: or Berihora: 
SIS. Shah re abe aa ar ani leer ST ellen Ne Sti 
dW ot ofl -¥), RODD. AMR me abate ETON CW ET ean ese AMIR PP oAibil ied 291 
SORE 5 0, Gite Cease wey en Mh int ae: AEM PL YI Un eS IAAI UTE MUP eB 4 293 


iv 


THE DIVINE TRINITY 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 


I. It belongs to the first treatise of Dogmatic 
Theology (De Deo Uno) to show that God is 
one and personal. The pantheistic fiction of an 
impersonal God is sufficiently exploded by the 
Almighty’s own solemn declaration (Gen. III, 
14) bam, Who am,’ * 


Whether the infinite personality of God must be con- 
ceived as simple or multiplex, is a matter which human 
reason cannot determine unaided. On the strength of 
the inductive axiom, “ Quot sunt naturae, tot sunt per- 
sonae,”’ we should rather be tempted to attribute but 
one personality to the one Divine Nature. Positive 
Revelation tells us, however, that there are in God three 
really distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 
This fundamental dogma, which essentially differentiates 
the Christian conception of God from that of the Pagans, 
the Jews, and the Mohammedans, is designated 
in the technical Latin of the Church as “ Trinitas,’ a 
term first used, so far as we know, by Theophilus of 
Antioch? and Tertullian, and which later became cur- 


1Cfr. Pohle-Preuss: God: His Autolycum, see Bardenhewer-Shahan, 
Knowability, Essence, and Attri- Patrology, pp. 66 sq., Freiburg and 
butes, 2nd ed., St. Louis, 1914. St. Louis 1908. On the word rpids, 

2Ad Autolyc., Il, 15: “Tpiddos cfr. Newman, Athanasius, II, 473 
Tov Beov Kai Aéyou kai THs copias  sa., 9th ed., London 1903.) 
avrov.” (On the three books Ad 3 De Pudicitia, c. 21: “ Trinitas 


I 


2 THE DIVINE TRINITY 


rent in ecclesiastical usage and was embodied in the 
Creeds.* In the private symbolum of St. Gregory 
Thaumaturgus mention is made of a “perfect Triad” 
(tps teXeia). Didymus the Blind, Cyril of Alexandria, 
Hilary, Ambrose, and Augustine have written separate 
treatises “On the Trinity.” 


2. Unity, simplicity, and unicity are as essen- 
tial to the mystery of the Blessed Trinity as the 
concept of triunity itself. Hence it is not sur- 
prising that all these momenta were equally em- 
phasized by the early Fathers. 


Thus we read in the Athanasian Creed:5 “Jta ut 
per ommia...et unitas in Trinitate, et Trinitas in 
unitate veneranda sit—So that in all things ... the 
Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be 
worshipped.” The first canon of the Lateran Council 
held under Pope Martin the First® reads thus: “Si 
quis secundum sanctos Patres non confitetur proprie 
et veraciter Patrem, et Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum, 
Trinitatem in unitate et unitatem in Trinitate ... con- 
demnatus sit— If any one does not with the Holy 
Fathers profess properly and truly the Father, and the 
Son, and the Holy Ghost, Trinity in Unity and Unity 
in Trinity, let him be anathema.”* If we pay special 
regard to the note of threeness, the Trinity presents 
itself mainly as a threefold personality in one Divine 
Nature. If, on the other hand, we accentuate the note 
of unity, the Trinity presents itself as Triunity (triuni- 


anins divinitatis, Pater et Filius et 5 Quoted by Denzinger-Bannwart, 
Spiritus Sanctus.” MISE o while Yt 

4 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridi- 6 A. D. 649. 
on Symbolorum, ed. 10, nn. 213, 7 Quoted by Denzinger-Bannwart, 


232, Friburgi Brisgoviae 1908. nN. 254. 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 3 


tas),® a term which expresses the numeric unity of the 
Godhead common to all three Divine Hypostases. Both 
points of view are not only legitimate in themselves, but 
demanded by the nature of the mystery and the heret- 
ical distortions to which it has been subjected. As 
against those Antitrinitarians who (like the Monarchians, 
the Sabellians, and the Subordinationists) exaggerate 
the notion of unity so as to deny a true and immanent 
_ Trinity in the Godhead, Dogmatic Theology has to prove 
the existence of three really distinct Persons. In re- 
futing the opposite heresy of Tritheism, which exag- 
gerates the notion of threeness and postulates three sep- 
arate divine natures, substances, or essences, it is neces- 
sary to show that the Divine Trinity is a Triunity. 


3. Antitrinitarianism in both of its antithetical 
forms is by no means a thing of the past, but 
under various guises still has numerous adher- 
ents. 


Whilst the few remaining partisans of Giinther’s the- 
ological system continue to teach a sort of veiled Trithe- 
ism, present-day Socinians, Unitarians, and Rationalists 
move entirely within the circle of the heretical notions 
,of Sabellius. Kantian Rationalism debases the mystery 
| of the Most Holy Trinity by treating it as a mere 
symbol indicative of the power, wisdom, and love of 
God. The school of Hegel pantheistically explains the 
Father as “das Ansichsein des Absoluten,’ the Son as 
“das Anderssein des Absoluten in der Welt,’ and the 
Holy Ghost as “die Riickkehr des Absoluten zu sich 
selber wm menschlichen Selbstbewusstsein”— for the 
meaning of which obscure phrases we must refer the 

8 Cfr, Isidor. Hispal., Etymol., VII, 4. 


Ce THE DIVINE TRINITY 


reader to the learned author of The Secret of Hegel. 
Schleiermacher does not deny the Trinity, but according 
to him it is such an unessential ‘‘ mode of existence of 
the Divine Being ” that he has acted wisely in relegating 
it to the appendix of his Glaubenslehre. The position 
of liberal Protestant theology at the present day is well 
stated by Adolph Harnack when he says:® “ Already 
in the second century Christ’s [natural] birth into this 
world assumed the rank of a supernatural, and later 
on that of an eternal generation, and the fact of being 
begotten, or passive generation itself, became the char- 
acteristic note of the second Person [in the Blessed 
Trinity]. Similarly, in the fourth century the promised 
[temporal] ‘mission’ of the Holy Ghost assumed the 
character of an ‘eternal mission’ and became the dis- 
criminating badge of the third Person within the Holy 
Triad. Nowhere have we a more characteristic example 
of what the imagination is capable of doing when it 
undertakes to evolve ideas.” With the exception of 
the relatively few champions of Lutheran orthodoxy, 
whose number is, moreover, constantly dwindling, mod- 
ern Protestantism no longer holds the Christian idea 
of the Blessed Trinity. Liberal theology is everywhere 
triumphing over orthodoxy. The demand, which is con- 
stantly growing louder and more widespread, even in 
this country, that no specific creed be imposed upon the 
members of any denomination, ultimately strikes at the 
dogma of the Holy Trinity and that of the Divinity of 
Christ. Among German divines Kriiger confesses this 
quite openly.° Catholic theology, which alone upholds 
the banner of true Christian belief, in asserting and de- 
fending the dogma of the Trinity finds it necessary above 


9 Dogmengeschichte, 3rd ed., Vol. 10In his book, Dreifakigkeit und 
II, p. 281, Freiburg 1894. Gottmenschheit, Leipzig 190s. 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS é 


all to demonstrate by the modern scientific method that 
this dogma is truly and clearly revealed by God, that it 
is solidly founded in Christian Tradition, and that it 
does not, as unbelievers allege, involve a contradiction. 


4. Since theistic philosophy is unable to estab- 
lish this dogma on the basis of unaided human 
reason, the Catholic theologian is compelled to 
adhere closely to the teaching of the Church. 
He must first believe; then he may inquire. 


The most perfect and complete Trinitarian formula 
that has come down to us from Patristic times is that 
composed by the Eleventh Council of Toledo, A. D. 675.12 
We prefer to base our exposition on the briefer and 
more perspicuous formula contained in the Athanasian 
Creed, which has the additional advantage of being 
vested with the primary authority due to an ancient Chris- 
tian symbol. The dogma of the Most Holy Trinity is 
there set forth in the following terms:*? “ Fides ca- 
tholica haec est, ut unum Deum in Trinitate, et Trinitatem 
in unitate veneremur; neque confundentes personas, 
neque substantiam separantes; alia est enim persona 
Patris, alia Fil, alia (et) Spiritus Sancti; sed Patris 
et Filu et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas, aequalis 


gloria, coaeterna maiestas. . 


nec creatus nec genitus. 


11 Denzinger-Bannwart,  Enchiri- 
dion, nn, 275 sqq. This symbol first 
treats of the Three Divine Persons 
in succession; then, in three further 
sections, it develops and sets forth 
the general doctrine, viz.: (1) the 
true unity of substance; (2) the real 
Trinity of the Persons; (3) the in- 
separable union of the Three Divine 
Persons, demanded by their very 


. Pater a nullo est factus 


Filius a Patre solo est, non 


distinction. In later times the 
dogma received a more distinct for- 
mulation only in two points, both 
directed against most subtle forms 
of separation and division in God, 
Cfr. Wilhelm-Scannell, 4 Manual of 
Catholic Theology Based on Schee- 
ben’s “ Dogmatik,’” Vol. I, p. 262, 
London 1899. 
12 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. qo, 


6 SHE DIVINE TRINTEY 


factus nec creatus, sed genitus. Spiritus Sanctus (a) 
Patre et Filio, non factus nec creatus nec genitus, sed 
‘procedens — The Catholic faith is this, that we wor- 
ship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither 
confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. 
For there is one Person of the Father, another of the 
Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead 
of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is 
all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.... 
The Father is made of none, neither created, nor be- 
gotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor 
created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father 
and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, 
but proceeding.” 18 

The chief points of our dogma may therefore be sum- 
marized thus: In essence, substance, and nature there 
is but one God. However, the Divine Nature does not 
subsist in one single Person or Hypostasis, but in 
three distinct Persons, 7. e., Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost. The Three do not coalesce after the manner of 
mere logical momenta, but are really distinct from one 
another, so much so that the one is not the other. 
They are not distinct in virtue of their nature, which 
is numerically the same in all three, but solely in virtue 
of the relative opposition by which the Son is begotten 
by the Father, while the Holy Ghost proceeds alike 
from the Father and the Son. The mystery peculiar 
to this sublime dogma arises from the mutual relations 
of the two principal concepts —‘ Nature” and “ Per- 
son.” Within the domain of human experience every 


13 The full English text of the Encyclopedia, s. v.—Cfr. Pohle- 
Athanasian Creed, together with a Preuss, God: His Knowability, Es- 
critical account of its provenance sence, and Attributes, p. 318, note 
and probable authorship, may be 6; F. J. Hall, The Trinity, pp. 18 
found in Vol. II of the Catholic sqq., New York rogro. 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Hy i 


complete nature is at the same time a separate hypos- 
tasis; in other words, every rational nature is eo ipso 
a distinct person. Hence the axiom, “Tot sunt hy- 
postases, quot sunt naturae.’ But this axiom has no 
metaphysical value, and cannot be applied to God, 
since Revelation expressly teaches that ‘ Nature” and 
“Person”? do not coincide either in reality or in con- 
ception. As we acknowledge three Persons in the one 
Divine Nature, so conversely we believe that there are 
in Christ two complete natures, the one divine, the other 
human, both subsisting in one and the same person, 1. @., 
the Divine Person of the Logos-Son. This revealed 
truth compels Catholic philosophy to draw a sharp dis- 
tinction between “ Nature” and “ Person,’ as we shall 
show more fully further down. 


Since the essence of the mystery consists in 
this that “we worship one God in Trinity, and 
Trinity in Unity,’ we may consider the Blessed 
Trinity first as Trinity in Unity (Trimtas m 
Umtate), or threefold personality; and, secondly, 
as Unity in Trinity (Unitas in Trinitate) or 
Triunity. We shall accordingly divide the sub- 
ject-matter of this treatise into two parts. 


GENERAL READINGS: — Above all St. Aug., De Trinit. ll. XV 
(translated into English by A. W. Haddan in Dods’s Works of 
Aurelius Augustine, Vol. VII, Edinburgh 1873); and, by way 
of commentary, Th. Gangauf, Des hl. Augustinus spekulative 
Lehre von Gott dem Dreieinigen, 2nd ed., Ratisbon 1883.— 
The Monologium S. Anselmi and Petr. Lomb., Sent., 1, dist. 
I sqq.— Rich. a S. Victore, De Trinitate Il. VI, takes a rather 
independent attitude— Besides St. Bonaventure (Comment. in 
Libros Sent., 1) cfr. *St. Thomas, S. Theol., 1a, qu. 27-43 (Bon- 


8 THE DIVINE TRINITY 


joannes-Lescher, Compendium, pp. 71 sqq.) and Contr. Gent., IV, 
1-26, together with the various commentaries on these great 
works. — A very good treatise is *Ruiz, De Trinit., Lugd. 1625. 
— The student will also find it profitable to consult Greg. de 
Valentia, De Trinit. ll. V; and Ysambert, De Mysterio Trinitatis ; 
Wilhelm-Scannell, 4 Manual of Catholic Theology Based on 
Scheeben’s “ Dogmatik,’ Vol. I, pp. 257-354, 2nd ed., London 
1899; S. J. Hunter, S. J., Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 
II, pp. 145-215, 2nd ed, London and New York s.a.; F. J. 
Hall (Anglican), The Trinity, New York 1910. 

The teaching of the Fathers can be studied in the copious 
quotations extracted from their works by Petavius, Dogm., t. 
II, and Thomassin, Dogm., t. III. 

In addition to the various manuals of special dogmatic the- 
ology, consult particularly *Kuhn, Christliche Lehre von der 
gottlichen Dreieinigkeit, Tiib. 1857; Franzelin, De Deo Trino, 
ed. 3, Romae 1883; Régnon, Etudes sur la Ste Trinité, 4 vols., 
Paris 1872-1898; L. Janssens, De Deo Trino, Friburgi 1900; 
Stentrup, De SS. Trinitatis Mysterio, Oeniponte 1898; Lépicier, 
De SS. Trinitate, Parisiis 1902; Souben, Théologie Dogmatique, 
II: “Les Personnes Divines,” Paris 1903; Newman, Select 
Treatises of St, Athanasius, Vol. II, pp. 315 sqq.— Further 
references in the footnotes.— For the history of the dogma, see 
Newman, ‘Causes of the Rise and Successes of Arianism” 
(Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical, new ed., London 18095, 
pp. 139-209) ; Adrian Fortescue, The Orthodox Eastern Church, 
Pp. 110, 135 sqq., London 1907; Ip—em, The Greek Fathers, passim, 
London 1908.— Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 66, 65, 185, 
210, 250, 281, 291, 300, 308.—*J. Lebreton, S. J., Les Origines 
du Dogme de la Trinité, Vol. I, Paris 1910; J. Tixeront, His- 
tory of Dogmas (English tr.), Vol. I, St. Louis 1910; Vol. II, 
ibid. 1914. 

* The asterisk before an author’s never means that we consider his 
name indicates that his exposition work in any way inferior to that 
of the subject is especially clear of others. There are vast stretches 
and thorough. As’ St. Thomas is of dogmatic theology which he 


invariably the best guide, the omis- scarcely touched. 
sion of the asterisk before his name 


PARTI 


THE HOLY TRINTDY. IN ONTDY:, 
OR THE THREEFOLD PER- 
SONALITY OF GOD’ 


Both the fact that (67 éorw), and the intrinsic reason 
why (807. éorw) there are Three Persons in God, is 
positively revealed to us in the doctrine of the inner- 
divine processions (Filiation and Spiration). They form 
part of the immediate deposit of the faith, and consti- 
tute the dogma of the Divine Trinity. We have first to 
prove the fact of the threefold personality of God from 
Sacred Scripture (Chapter 1) and Tradition (Chapter 
II) ; then (Chapter III) we shall enter into a dogmatic 
consideration of the cause of this fact, vizg.: the mys- 
terious vital processes immanent in the Godhead which 
are called “ Filiation ” and ‘ “Spiration.” In a conclud- 
ing Chapter (IV) we shall discuss the speculative the- 
ological development of the dogma. 

1Cfr. Newman, Select Treatises Holy Trinity in Unity,” pp. 315- 


of St. Athanasius, Vol. II (Being 325, 9th ed., London 1903. 
an Appendix of Illustrations), “ The 


CHARPLER 


GOD’S THREEFOLD PERSONALITY PROVED FROM 
SACRED SCRIPTURE 


There are traces of the dogma in the Old 
Testament, but they are rather indefinite and 
obscure unless viewed in the light of the New 
Testament. It is upon the latter, therefore, 
that the Scriptural argument is almost exclusively 
based. After briefly rehearsing the Old Testa- 
ment intimations (§1), we will marshal the 
Trinitarian texts contained in the New Testa- 
ment in a double series, first citing those which 
treat of all three Divine Persons together (§2), 
and secondly those which refer to only one of 
the three Divine Persons without mentioning 
the other two (§3). The dogma of the Holy 
Trinity is immutably grounded in the Unity of 
the Divine Essence. Accordingly, throughout 
the triple argument upon which we are about 
to enter for the purpose of tracing out the hy- 
postatic differences of the Three Divine Persons, 
it will be important not to lose sight of the mono- 
theistic foundation on which alone this dogma 
can be built up. 

ie) 


SECTION 1 


THE THREEFOLD PERSONALITY OF GOD FORESHAD- 
OWED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


I. PRIMITIVE INTIMATIONS OF THE DoGMA.— 
Some theologians take the plural form of several 
of the names attributed to Jehovah * in the Old 
Testament as an obscure intimation of the dogma 
of the Trinity. 


We are not inclined to press this argument. Neither 
do we attach much importance to the theory of Clement 
of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine, who point to the 
expression MWNID in Gen. I, 1 as a proof for the 


ee 


Logos, explaining “in principio” to mean “in Verbo, 1. 
e., Filio.’ Upon close scrutiny this more than doubtful 
interpretation turns out to be of later origin and ex- 
egetically unsupported. In Gen. I, 26 sq., however, 
we come upon what appears to be a definite allusion 
to the mystery of the Divine Trinity: ““ Faciamus 
hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. .. . 
Et creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem suam — Let us 
make man to our image and likeness. ... And God 
created man to his own image.” ‘The hortatory subjunc- 
tive plural which heads verse 26, and is followed by an 
indicative verb in the singular in verse 27, cannot be 

2Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His 8 Cfr. Patrizi, De Interpret. Script. 
Knowability, Essence, and Attri- Sacrae, 1, II, qu. 2. 


butes, pp. 134 sqq. 


It 
A 


12 OLD TESTAMENT INTIMATIONS 


taken as a pluralis maiestaticus, nor yet as addressed to 
the angels; for man was not created to the image of the 
angels, but to that of God Himself. 


There is a similar passage in Gen. XI, 7 sq.: “Come 
ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their 
tongue. . . . And so the Lord scattered them.” 4 Many 


Tee fie in this connection recall the liturgical bless- 
ing of the priests, Num. VI, 24 sqq., which they regard 
as a parallel to the Christian formula, “In the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” 
This Old Testament benediction, dictated by Yahweh 
Himself to Moses, is as follows: ‘ The Lord bless thee 
and keep thee. The Lord show his face to thee, and 
have mercy on thee. The Lord turn his countenance to 
thee and give thee peace.” 

The clearest allusion to the mystery of the Blessed 
Trinity in the Old Testament is probably the so-called 
Trisagion of Isaias (VI, 3): “Holy, holy, holy, the 
Lord God of Hosts, all the earth is full of his glory,” 
which is rightly made much of by many Fathers and 
not a few theologians. This triple “ Holy” refers to 
an ecstatic vision of the Godhead, by which Isaias 
was solemnly called and consecrated as the Prophet 
of the Incarnate Word, an office which won for him 
the title of the “Evangelist” among the four major 
prophets.® 


2. THE ANGEL OF JEHOVAH IN THE THE- 
OPHANIES.—The various apparitions commonly 
known as theophanies, in which Yahweh figures 
both as sender and messenger, mark the grad- 


4For the pa interpretation of this passage consult Petavius, De 
Trinitate, II, 
5 Cfr. John Xu, 41. 


THE ANGEL OF JEHOVAH 13 


ual breaking of the dawn in the history of our 
dogma. 


The God who is sent is called mn? Ned, 1. €., mes- 


senger, Angelus Domini, the word angelus being here 
employed in its literal sense of éyyedos, from dyyéAAaw, 
to send. Since the “ Angel of Jehovah” is described 
as i, 1. e., true God, we have in these theophanies 
two distinct persons, both of them Yahweh, the one 
“sending” and the other “sent.” An apparition of 
this character was the angel who spoke words of com- 
fort to Hagar shortly before the birth of her son Ismael ¢ 
in the desert. According to Gen. XVIII, 1 sqq., “the 
Lord [1] appeared to [Abraham] in the vale of 
Mambre,” in order to announce to him the destruction 
of Sodom and Gomorrha.’ 

Probably the most familiar of the Old Testament 
theophanies is the apparition of the Angel of Jehovah 
in the Burning Bush. Exod. III, 2: “ Apparuit ei nin 
Eze) in flamma ignis de medio rubi— And the Lord ap- 
peared to him [Moses] in a flame of fire out of the 
midst of a bush.” It is to be noted that the Lord who 
appears to Moses is Jehovah Himself. Exod., III, 14: 
“God said to Moses: I am wHo am.” Viewing this 
apparition in the light of the New Testament Revela- 
tion, the appearing God can be none other than the 
Logos, or Son of God, because the Father cannot be 
“sent.” True, the Holy Ghost may also be “sent;” but 
He cannot have appeared in the bush to Moses because 
the prophets expressly identify the “ Angel of Jehovah” 
with the future Messias (4. ¢., Christ)... -Cfr. Is. IX, 6 


6 Gen. XVI, 7 saq. \ general, H. P. Liddon, The Divin- 

7 On this passage, cfr. Newman, ity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, Christ, pp. 78 sqq., London 1867. 
II, 267 sq.; on the theophanies in 


14 OLD TESTAMENT INTIMATIONS 


(in the version of the Septuagint): ‘ MeydAns BovAgs 
dyyedos, Magni consilii angelus;” Mal. III, 1: “ Angelus 
testamenti.’ The interpretation here adopted is com- 
mon to all the Fathers. Thus St. Hilary teaches: 
“Deus igitur est, qui et angelus est, quia qui et angelus 
Dei est, Deus est ex Deo natus. Dei autem angelus ob 
id dictus, quia magni consilii est angelus. Deus autem 
idem postea demonstratus est, ne qui Deus est esse 
angelus |creatus] crederetur.” § 

It is quite another question whether in these theoph- 
anies the Logos directly appeared as God in visible form, 
or through the intermediate agency of an angel. In the 
latter case the apparitions might with equal propriety 
be styled “angelophanies.” St. Augustine took this 
view, without, however, denying the theophanic character 
of such angelophanies. He held that a created angel 
visibly appeared as the representative of God in such a 
manner that the words he spoke must be understood as 
coming not from the actual speaker but from Jehovah 
himself. This opinion was shared by Athanasius, Basil, 
Cyril of Alexandria, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Jerome, 
Gregory the Great, and others.*° The great majority of 
the Schoolmen espoused it mainly for the reason that 
the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity had never 
appeared visibly upon earth prior to His Incarnation.?® 
The first immediate theophany of the Logos, they argued, 
coincided with the Incarnation; Hefcran in the Old 
Testament theophanies He Hats have employed angels 
as His representatives, 


8De Trinit., ‘IV, n. 24.— Ctr. mat., t. II, third ed., p. 262, Fri- 


Newman, ‘‘ Causes of the Rise and burgi 1906;— Newman, J. c.; Lid- 
Successes of Arianism,” in Tracts don, of. cit., 85 sq. 

Theol. and Ecclesiastical, pp.. 212 10 Cfr. Hebr. I, 1 sqq.; II, 1 sqq., 
sq., new ed., London 1895. et passim. 


9 Cfr. Chr. Pesch, Praelect. Dog- 


THE MESSIANIC PSALMS 15 


3. THe Future MessiAs As TRUE Gop.—The 
Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament were 
primarily designed to emphasize the Divinity of 
the future Messias. Hence Christ Himself and 
His Apostles justly appealed to them to prove 
not only the divine mission but likewise the Di- 
vinity of the Saviour and the fact that He was 
truly the Son of God. 


Among the prophets iain speaks most clearly and 
emphatically. Not only does he refer to the Messias as 
“the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Prince of Peace,” 
but also as “ God the Mighty, the Father of the world to 
come.” 24 He styles Him “ Emmanuel,” 7. e., God with 
us.2 It is expressly said of Him that “ God himself will 
come and will save you.” 1% And again: “ Prepare ye 
the way of the Lord. . . . Behold, the Lord God shall 
come with strength.”’* “His name shall be called 
God.” #5 In Zach. XII, ro, God prophesies His own cru- 
cifixion: “ Et adspicient ad me, quem confixerunt et 
plangent eum— And they shall look upon me, whom 
they have pierced; and they shall grieve over him,” 7° 

The Messianic Psalms complete the picture outlined 
by the prophets; nay, they go far beyond the lat- 
ter both in emphasizing the difference of persons by 
a contra-position of the pronouns “I” and “thou, ih 
and also by indicating that the relation existing between 
the First and the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity 
is a relation of Father to Son, based upon Filiation. 
At the same time they do not omit to accentuate the 

11 Is, IX, 6; cfr. Luke I, 32. 14Is. XL, 3, 10; cfr. Mark I, 3. 


4210s. VII, 14; cfr. Matth. I,.23 15 Tsaix 6, 
13 Is, XX XV, 4; cfr. Matth. XI, 5. 16 Cfr. John XIX, 37. 


16 OLD TESTAMENT INTIMATIONS 


undivided nature of both Divine Persons, which they 
express by the word Ain. Thus especially Ps. II, 7: 
“Dominus [nin] dixvit ad me: Filius meus es tu, ego 
hodie genui te — The Lord hath said to me: Thou art 
my son, this day I have begotten thee.” 17 Similarly Ps. 
CIX, 1-3: “Dixit Dominus Domino meo [)xixd nin] : 


sede a dexteris meis;... ex utero ante luciferum 
genut te— The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at 
my right hand . . . from the womb before the day star 


I begot thee.”1* If the future Messias is the “Son 
of God,’ and at the same time Jehovah, it is obvious 
that there must also be a “Father” who is Jehovah. 
Consequently, there must be two Divine Persons in one 
Divine Nature. This notion was so familiar to the Jews 
that Jesus, in order to prove His Divinity, had merely to 
advert to the fact that He was the Son of God to pro- 
voke them to anger and blasphemy.’® They well knew 
that to admit His Divine Sonship was tantamount to 
recognizing His Divinity.?° 


4. ‘HE TEACHING OF THE SAPIENTIAL Books. 
—A great step towards the complete unfolding 
of the mystery is made by the Sapiential Books.”* 
There we find the notion of Hypostatic Wisdom 
closely blended with that of Filiation, and are 
given to understand that the Filiation which 
takes place within the Godhead is a purely spirit- 
ual process, and that He Who is “begotten by 


a7Cfr. Hebr, I, 8. For further information on _ this 
18 Cfr. Math. XXII, 42 sqq. point, see infra, § 3. 
19 Cfr. John V, 18; X, 33. 21 Prov. VIII; Wisd. VII sqaq.; 


20 Cfr. John I, 32 sqq.; I, 49; IX, Ecclus, XXIV. 
35 sqq.; Luke I, 35 sqq., et passim. 


THE SAPIENTAL BOOKS 17 


God” must be essentially conceived as “Begotten 
Wisdom” (Logos). 


The Sapiential Books speak of Uncreated, Divine Wis- 
dom in a manner which leaves no doubt that they mean 
more than a personified attribute. The following texts 
read like parallel passages to certain verses of St. 
John’s Gospel. Prov. VIII, 24 sqq. “ Nondum erant 
abyssi et ego [t. @., Sapientia] iam concepta eram: 

. ante colles [1. e., ab aeterno] ego parturiebar. . . 
Cum eo [scil. Deo] eram, cuncta componens et delec- 
tabar per singulos dies, ludens coram eo omni tempore, 
ludens in orbe terrarum, et deliciae meae esse cum filiis 
hominum — The depths were not as yet, and I [Wis- 
dom] was already conceived . . . before the hills I was 
brought forth. ... I was with him [God] forming all: 
and was delighted every day, playing before him at all 
times: and my delights [were] to be with the children 
of men.” The subject of this passage is obviously not 
a divine attribute, but a Divine Person, who is called 
“Conceived Wisdom.” The expression, “I was with 
him,” ?? has a parallel in John I, 1: ‘The Word was 
with God” (Verbum erat apud Deum; xpos tov @cdv). 
The Book of Wisdom,?* in designating Divine Wisdom 
as “a vapor of the power of God” (vapor virtutis Dei), 
“a certain pure emanation of glory” (emanatio clari- 
tatis), “the brightness of eternal light” (candor lucis), 
“the unspotted mirror of God’s majesty” (speculum 
matestatis), “the image of his goodness” (imago boni- 
tatis), reminds one of the manner in which St. Paul char- 
acterizes Christ’s relationship to God the Father,** 7. e., as 


22‘* Cum eo eram”; the Septua- 23 Wisd. VII, 25 sqq. 
gint has: funy map’ atvr@; the 24 Hebr. I, 3. 


Hebrew: jbyx 3 


18 OLD TESTAMENT INTIMATIONS 


“the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his sub- 
stance ” (splendor gloriae et figura substantiae ews). The 
following sentence,” “ And thy wisdom with thee, which 
knoweth thy works, which then also was present when 
thou madest the world — Et tecum (pera cov) sapientia 
tua, quae novit opera tua, quae et affuit tunc, quum orbem 
terrarum faceres (mdpovoa ore éoies Tov KOopov), iS again 
distinctly Johannine in style and sentiment. The same 
impression is conveyed by Ecclus. XXIV, 5: “I came 
out of the mouth of the most High [as the Word], the 
firstborn before all creatures.” 7° 

In view of this striking concordance between the 
Sapiential Books of the Old Testament and the Gospel 
of St. John, it is not astonishing that certain learned 
Jewish rabbis at a later period elaborated an independ- 
ent theory of the “ Word of God,” called Memrah,7” 
by which they endeavored to explain the Old Testa- 
ment teaching regarding Wisdom without any reference 
to Christ.28 It is easy to see, too, why the Fathers of 
the Nicene epoch appealed to the Sapiential Books of the 
Old Testament to prove the Consubstantiality and con- 
sequent Divinity of Christ. The Arians, on their part, 
quoted the Sapiential Books in support of their heretical 
tenet that the Logos was a creature.”® 


5. [He Hoty Guost.—The Old Testament 
references to the Third Person of the Blessed 
Trinity are neither as plain nor as definite as 


26 Wisd. IX, 9g. 

26 “‘ Ego ex ore altissimi prodivi 
[ut Verbum], primogentta ante om- 
nem creaturam,” 

27 A Chaldaic word for Wisdom. 
Cir. J. Lebreton, Les Origines du 
Dogme de la Trinité, pp. 145 sqq. 

28This theory is incorporated 


chiefly in the writings of the Tar- 
gumim and Onkelos. Cfr. The Jew- 
ish Encyclopedia. 

29 Cir. Newman, The Arians of 
the Fourth Century, pp. 202 sqq.; 
Ipem, Select Treatises of St. Athana- 
sius, II, 337 saqq. Cfr. also Chapter 
II, § 2, Art. 3, infra. 


PAERVHOLY GHOST 19 


the texts relating to the Son. “It is natural to 
expect more references to the Son than to the 
Holy Ghost in the Old Testament, because it 
prepares and announces the coming and mani- 
festation of the Son in the Incarnation.” °° 
The Old Testament references to the Holy 
Ghost can nearly all of them be explained as per- 
sonifications. “Spiritus Dei’ may merely mean 
a breath of the Divine Omnipotence,** or the 
supernatural effects of the spirit of God, which, 
according ta..Ps) CIT. 30, renews) the «face 
of the earth.” The Fathers in their exeget- 
ical works quote a number of Old Testament 
texts in which they profess to find references to 
the Holy Spirit as a Person.*? But their inter- 
pretation of these and similar passages is in- 
spired by, and owes its impressiveness to the 
light derived from, the New Testament. It is in 
this light, too, that we must regard Wisd. IX, 1 
sqq., the only Old Testament passage in which the 
Three Divine Persons are mentioned together: 


“Deus patrum meorum, ... qui fecisti omnia 
Verbo tuo, ... da mil sedium tuarum assistri- 
cem sapientiam. ... Sensum autem tuum quis 


sciet, nisi tu dederis sapientiam et miseris Spi- 
ritum Sanctum tuum de altissimis? — God of my 


fathers, . . . who hast made all things with thy 
30 Wilhelm-Scannell, Manual, Vol. 32 Joel II, 28; Job XXXITI, 4; 
Pp s2o3. Wisd. I; 7; Is. .LXI, 1, ete. 


81 Cfr. Gen. I, 2. 


20 OLD TESTAMENT INTIMATIONS 


word, . . . give me wisdom, that sitteth by thy 
throne . . . Who shall know thy thought, except 
thou give wisdom, and send thy Holy Spirit from 
above?” | 

It cannot therefore be seriously maintained that 
the mystery of the Divine Trinity was clearly 
revealed in the Old Testament. Aside from cer- 
tain specially enlightened individuals, such as 
Abraham, Moses, Isaias, and David, the Jews 
could not, from the more or less enigmatic hints 
scattered through their sacred books, have ob- 
tained a sufficiently distinct knowledge of the 
Blessed Trinity to make it appear as an article 
of faith. 

Nevertheless it remains true that the Trinity 
was not announced in the New Testament sud- 
denly and without preparation. On the contrary, 
the great mystery of the Godhead was fore- 
shadowed from the very beginning of the Jewish 
Covenant and assumed more definite and lumi- 
nous proportions during and after the time of 
David, until at last it stood fully revealed in the 
mystery of the Incarnation,** and the mission of 
the Holy Ghost on Pentecost Day. 


REApIncs:— Drach, De l’Harmonie entre VEglise et la Syn- 
agogue, Paris 1844.—P. Scholz, Theologie des A. B., Vol. I, 
§§ 29 sqq., Ratisbon 1861.— Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. I, § 110, 
Freiburg 1875 (Wilhelm-Scannell’s Manual, I, pp. 283 sqq.). 


33 Matth. I, 18 sqq.; Luke I, 35,etc. 


, 
RHE HOEY GHOST 21 


— *Heinrich, Dogmat. Theologie, and ed., Vol. III, §§ 214-218, 
Mainz 1883.— Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 6 and 7, Romae 188t. 
On the “Angel of Jehovah,” cfr. A. Rohling in the Tibinger 
Quartalschrift, 1866, pp. 415 sqq., 527 sqq.; *L. Reinke, Beitrage 
zur Erklarung des A. T., Vol. IV, pp. 355 sqq.; J. Lebreton, 
Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinité, pp. 89 sqq., Paris 1910. 

On the Messias, cfr. *Konig, Theologie der Psalmen, Freiburg 
1857; L. Reinke, Messianische Psalmen, 2 vols., Giessen 1857- 
1858; H. Zschokke, Theologie der Propheten, Freiburg 1877; 
H. P. Liddon, The Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
Christ, London 1867; A. J. Maas, S. J., Christ in Type and 
Prophecy, 2 vols., New York 1893-5. 

On the Sapiential Books of the Old Testament cfr. *Fr. Klasen, 
Die alttestamentliche Weisheit und der Logos der quidisch- 
alexandrinischen Philosophie, 1878; also J. Réville, Le Logos 
@aprés Philon d’Alexandrie, Paris 1877; Zschokke, Der dog- 
matisch-ethische Lehrgehalt der alttestamentlichen Weisheits- 
bicher, Wien 1889; E. Krebs, Der Logos als Heiland im ersten 
Jahrhundert, Freiburg 1910; J. Lebreton, Les Origines du Dogme 
de la Trinité, 89 sqq., 441 sqq., Paris 1910. 


SECTION: 2 


THE THREEFOLD PERSONALITY OF GOD AS TAUGHT 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT—TEXTS TREATING 
OF THE THREE DIVINE PERSONS | 
TOGETHER 


Though the exact terms in which the Church 
has formally defined the dogma of the Blessed 
Trinity (teds==trinitas, ocbola'—= substantia, iné- 
gracis — persona, Spoovows — consubstantialis) are 
not in the Bible, and may, therefore, in a sense 
be called unscriptural; yet materially, that is in 
substance, they correctly express the teaching of 
the New Testament, which, like the Church, ex- 
plicitly acknowledges three real Persons in one 
Divine Nature, in which precisely the cose of 
the “Trinity in Unity’ consists. 


As we are here dealing with a fundamental dogma 
of Christianity, the material correspondence of the New 
Testament doctrine with the formally defined teaching 
of the Church must be carefully and stringently demon- 
strated. We therefore proceed to a minute critical in- 
vestigation of the various texts that are apt to throw 
light on the subject. Let us begin with those in which 


1Cfr. Hebr. I, 3, where Umdaracis is used as synonymous with sub- 
stantia, 


22 


THE GOSPELS 23 


the threefold personality of God is distinctly and form- 
ally enunciated. 


I. THE GospELs.—Four such texts occur in 
the Gospels. Though their combined effect is 
sufficiently compelling, they are not all of equal 
weight. The most convincing is the passage em- 
bodying the form of Baptism. 


a) The first brief intimation of the functioning of 
Three Divine Persons is given in the Annunciation: ' 
“Spiritus Sanctus superveniet in te, et virtus Altissimi 
obumbrabit tibi; ideoque et quod nascetur ex te sanctum, 
vocabitur Filius Det — The Holy Ghost shall come upon 
thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow 
thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born 
of thee shall be called the Son of God.” ? Here all three 
Divine Persons are distinctly mentioned: first, the Son 
who is to be born, second, the Holy Ghost, and third, the 
“Most High,” who stands in the relation of a Father to 
Him of whom it is said a few verses farther up:? “ Hic 
ertt magnus et Filius Altissimi vocabitur — He shall be 
great, and shall be called the Son of the most High.” 
Where there is a Son of God, there must also be a Di- 
vine Father. The relative opposition between the terms 
Father and Son forbids the welding of both persons into 
one. This is sufficient evidence that we have here not 
merely three different names for one Divine Person, 
but three really distinct Hypostases, of which one is not 
the other. Nor can it have been the intention of the 
sacred writer merely to personify certain absolute at- 
tributes of the Deity. The Son of God, who is to be 
made flesh (Christ), manifestly represents a real Person. 

2 Luke I, 35. 3 Luke I, 32. 


24 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Moreover, the strict monotheism of the Bible necessitates 
the. assumption that the three Divine Persons mentioned 
in the text must be consubstantial, 7. e., absolutely iden- 
tical in essence. 

b) The most glorious external manifestation of the 
Blessed Trinity occurred in connection with the Bap- 
tism of Christ.* Christ, the Son of God, is standing 
in the Jordan; the Holy Ghost descends upon Him in 
the form of a dove, and the voice of the Father calls 
from Heaven: “ This is my beloved Son in whom I am 
well pleased.’”’ Here, too, the hypostatic difference be- 
tween the three Persons, and the impossibility of blending 
them into one, is quite apparent. The “ beloved Son” 
and the Father expressing His pleasure are clearly differ- 
entiated, while the Person of the Holy Ghost is em- 
blemed by the dove, a symbolic figure which would 
be unsuited to any absolute attribute of the Godhead.’ 
Though the identity of Nature of the three Divine Per- 
sons is not expressly enunciated in the above-quoted pas- 
sages, it may, as a matter of course, be presumed. 

c) In His famous farewell discourse delivered after 
the last Supper,® Christ announced that He was “ going 
to the Father”? and would ask Him to send the Para- 
clete. The distinction here made between the three Di- 
vine Persons is as obvious as it is real. No one can be 
father and son under the same aspect, nor can any one 
send himself. When Christ says, for instance: “ Ego 
rogabo Patrem, et alium Parachtum dabit vobis, ut 
maneat vobiscum in aeternum, Spiritum veritatis — I will 
ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete, 
that he may abide with you forever, the Spirit of truth,” 7 


4 Matth. IIT, 13 sqq.; Mark I, 9 5 Cfr. T. J. Gerrard, The Way- 
sqq.; Luke ITI, 21 sqq.; cfr. Job 1, farer’s Vision, pp. 200 saq. 
Be. 6 John XIV-XVI, 


7 John XIV, 16 sq. 


THE GOSPELS 25 


He distinguishes between His own Person, that of the 
Father, and that of the “‘other Paraclete” and clearly 
identifies the latter with the “ Spirit of truth.’ § 

The threefold personality of the Godhead appears still 
more distinctly from John XV, 26: “Quum autem 
veneritt Paraclitus, quem ego mittam vobis a Patre, Spi- 
ritum veritatis, qui a Patre procedit, ille testimonium per- 
hibebit de me — But when the Paraclete cometh, whom 
I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who 
gee See from the Father, he shall give testimony of 
me.” The absolute consubstantiality of Father and 
Son is taught in John XVI, 15: : “Omnia, quaecumque 
“habet Pater, mea sunt — All things whatsoever the Father 
hath, are mine,” and it is no less true of the Holy Ghost. 


d) The baptismal form, “In the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” 
enunciates all the essential elements of the Holy 
Trinity... “Euntes ergo docete omnes gentes, 
baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filia et 
Spiritus Sancti (Barri€ovres avrovs eis TO dvOLa Tev 
mTaTpos Kal Tov viod Kal Tov dyiov TVEVMATOS ) , a The hy- 
postatic difference between Father and Son is 
brought out by the relative opposition, in virtue 
of which they exclude each other as begetting 
and begotten. For no one can be his own 
father or his own son. To admit such an ab- ' 
surdity would be to deny the principle of con- 
tradiction and thereby to subvert right reason. 
Hence there is a real difference between the 


S Par getitis aa Shiritus| Sanctus. “'9iCfr. “Matth. XXVIIT, zo. 


26 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Father and the Son. As to the Holy Ghost, the 
co-ordination involved in the use of et—et (xe 
—xai) forbids us to confound Him with either of 
the other two Persons. Consequently He must 
be an independent third Person, coequal and con- 
substantial with the other two. It should be 
“noted that the Johannine text does not say: “In 
the name of the Father, or the Son, or the Holy 
Ghost,” but “In the name of the Father, and of 
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (tot zatpés Kat rob 
; viov Kal Tov ayiov mve}patos ) ,”’ The particle kat with 
the definite article marks off the three Divine 
Persons very sharply from one another, despite 
the unity implied between them. For this rea- 
son “Holy Ghost” can not be taken as an at- 
tribute determining the concept “Son.” 

In attempting to answer the question, “What 
kind of unity is it by which the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Ghost are one?’ we must pay 
special attention to the words “In the name.’ 
It makes no difference whether we follow the 
text of the Latin Vulgate, “In nomine,”’ or the 
Greek text with its <s évoua. Both «is évova and 
é éyépar, as well as ém 7G dvdpari 1? occur in the 
_ original Greek text, and for our present purpose 
they are equally conclusive. For man to be 
baptized in the name of the Most Holy Trinity 
can have no other meaning than that through 


10 Acts II, 38. 


THE GOSPELS 27 


baptism he obtains forgiveness of his sins in vir- 
tue and by the authority of the three Divine Per- 
sons; while to baptize «is 6voua of the Blessed Trin- 
ity signifies the devotion with which the person 
baptized is expected to consecrate himself to and 
to seek his last end and aim in the “Deity.” * 
In either case Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are 
certainly identical with the Deity itself, because 
no one can expect forgiveness of his sins from, or 
seek his final end in, a mere creature, without 
making himself guilty of idolatry. If the three 
Persons mentioned are identical with the God- 
head, they cannot be three Gods, but must be 
the One God taught by both Testaments.” 

The essential identity of the three Divine 
Persons follows further from the singular form 
“in nome,” because throughout the Bible 
“nomen Domini” signifies God’s power, majesty, 
and essence.** As the Three have but one name, 
so They have but one essence, one nattiré; one 
substance. St. Augustine beautifully observes: 
“Tste unus Deus, quia non in nominibus Patris 
et Filu et Spiritus Sancti, sed in nomine Patris 
et Filu et Spiritus Sancti. Ubt unum nomen 
audis, unus est Deus — This is one God, for it is 
not in the names of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost, but in the name of the 


11 Cfr, Rom. VI, 3  sqq.3 1 Cor. Knowability, Essence, and Attri- 
I, %2.84q.;) ITI, 4. sqq.; Gal TIT, ‘27. butes, pp. 212 sqq. 
12 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His 13 ““ Nomen est numen.” 


3 


28 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 
Where thou hearest one name, there is one 
Ged.) 

2. THE EpistLes.—The Apostolic Epistles con- 
tain four texts in which the three Divine Persons 
are mentioned together. Most prominent among 
them is the much-discussed Comma Ioannewm (1 _ 


John V, 7). 


a) The prologue to the first Epistle of St. Peter reads: 
“Petrus... electis ... secundum praescientiam Det 
Patris, in sanctificationem Spiritus, in obedientiam et as- 
persionem sanguinis Iesu Christi: gratia vobis et pax mul- 
tiplicetur — Peter ...to the... elect, according te 
the foreknowledge of God the Father, unto the sancti- 
fication of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of 
the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you and peace be 
multiplied.” Here we have a Trinitarian form of bene- 
diction in which the omniscient Father, the sanctifying 
Spirit, and Jesus Christ, our Redeemer by the “ sprink- 
ling of blood,” appear on a par. Consequently the Three 
are one true God. Though this isolated text is not suffi- 
cient to establish a real distinction between the three 
Divine Persons (for the sanctifying Spirit might possibly 
be conceived as a mere attribute of the Father or of 
Jesus Christ), the teaching of the New Testament in 
many other places makes it quite certain that Jesus Christ 
is the “Son of God” who differs hypostatically from 
the Father, as the Holy Ghost differs hypostatically from 
both the Father and the Son. 

14 August., Tract. in Ioa., VI, n.. Homilies on the Gospel according te 


9. Browne’s translation in the Li- St. John, p. 87, Oxford 1848. 
brary of the Fathers, Vol. I of the 


THESEPISTCES 29 


b) The epilogue of St. Paul’s second Epistle to the 
Corinthians contains a similar form of blessing: “ Gratia 
Domini nostri Iesu Christi et charitas Dei [scil. Patris] 
et communicatio Sancti Spiritus sit cum omnibus vobis 
— The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity 
of God [the Father], and the communication of the 
Holy Ghost be with you all.”1+5 As grace and charity 
are supernatural gifts which only the Godhead can dis- 
pense, there can be no question that here again the 
Three Dispensers are One God. But does the text 
oblige us to postulate three really distinct Persons? We 
think it does; for the Greek original ** puts the “ grace of 
our Lord Jesus Christ”? on a par with the “ charity of 
God” and the “ communication” (xowwvia) of the Holy 
Ghost.”” It is improbable that the “God of charity ” 
should be personally identical either with our Lord Jesus 
Christ or the Holy Ghost. 

c) St. Paul’s teaching on the spiritual gifts and the 
charismata " is rightly held to have a special bearing on 
the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity. Exegetes de- 
duce from the threefold nature of the effect (yapicpara, 
Siaxovian, evepynuata) the existence of a threefold hyposta- 
tic principle (zveiya, ktpis, beds). But, since a little 
further down in St. Paul’s text § all these gifts are ap- 
propriated to “the same Spirit,” that which was at first 
divided returns to its original unity, and consequently 
Spirit, Lord, and God are not three gods, but one God. 
The somewhat involved passage is as follows: “ Divi- 
siones vero gratiarum (xapiopdtov) sunt, idem autem 


i152) Core NELEN 132 scheid (Novum Testamentum, p. 

16 The Greek text has: 7 xX apis 361, Friburgi 1901) correctly trans- 
tov kuplov "Inco Xpicrov, kai 4 lates: “Gratia . . . et charitas.” 
ayarn rov Ocov kal » Kowwvia 171 Cor. XII, 4 sqq. 


Tov aylov mvevmaros, which Brand- 18 1\Con X11, vex, 


30 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Spiritus (mveipa); [cfr. verse 3: & mvevpati dyin]; et 
divisiones ministrationum sunt (8axovev = ministries, 
ecclesiastical offices), idem autem Dominus (6 kipios = 
Christ); et divisiones operationum sunt (évepynudrwv 
= miracles), idem vero Deus (6 atrds @cds), qui 
operatur omnia in omnibus — Now there are diversities 
of graces, but the same Spirit; and there are diversities 
of ministries, but the same Lord; and there are diversi- 
ties of operations, but the same God, who worketh in 
all.” 1° It is plain from the context that, on the basis 
of three supernatural operations, St. Paul here means 
to distinguish three separate Divine Persons: Spiritus, 
Dominus, and Deus. That he does not mean to assert the 
existence of three Gods appears from verse 11: “ Haec 
autem omnia operatur unus atque idem Spiritus (16 & 
kat TO avTdo mvevpa), dividens singulis, prout vult — But 
all these things one and the same spirit worketh, dividing 
to every one according as he will.” 

A similar change of subject, by which the same ex- 
ternal operation is ascribed now to this Divine Per- 
son and now to that, occurs in many other places in 
Holy Scripture, e. g., in the vision of Isaias.2° The au- 
thorship of this vision is in the original Hebrew referred 
to the Divinity in general (78), in John XII, 40, to 
Christ, and in Acts XXVIII, 25 sqq., to the Holy Ghost. 
Except on the assumption of a numerical oneness of 
nature and essence these expressions are absolutely un- 
intelligible.?? | 


d) THE Comma IoANNEUM.—If its textual 
authenticity could be established, the famous 


191 Cor. XII, 4 sqq. beiden Briefe an die Korinther, pp. 
20 Is. VI, 9 sq. 244 sqq., Minster 1903. 
21 Cfr. Al. Schafer, Erklarung der 


THE COMMA IOANNEUM 31 


Comma Ioanneum (1 John V, 7), or text of the 
three heavenly Witnesses, would be of equal dog- 
matic value with the form of Baptism. As it 
stands, it is a pregnant and clear textus per se 
dogmaticus, outweighing, e. g., St. Paul’s entire 
Epistle to Philemon, and enforcing the dogma 
of the Divine Trinity more perfectly than any 
other passage in the Bible. 


It would, however, be a mistake to suppose that, 
should it ever become necessary to sacrifice the Comma 
Ioanneum, the Biblical argument for the dogma of the 
Blessed Trinity would suffer essential impairment. The 
whole of our present chapter goes to show the con- 
trary. Yet no one will blame the Catholic theologian 
for utilizing, in spite of certain critical misgivings, a 
text which has been received into the liturgy of the 
Church, and for many centuries 2? formed part and parcel 
of the Latin Vulgate. Aside from questions of textual 
criticism, it is plain that the dogmatic authenticity of 1 
John V, 7, cannot be questioned without endorsing the 
heretical view that a proposition received into the Sacred 
Text under the vigilant eye of the Church may contain 
dogmatic errors. In this purely dogmatic sense, there- 
fore, the Comma Ioanneum is undoubtedly authentic and 
may be used as an argument, even though, so long as its 
textual authenticity has not been securely established, the 
demonstration based upon it cannot claim to be a strictly 
Biblical proof. 

In perfect conformity with the well-known views of 
St. John the Evangelist, the Comma Ioanneum enu- 
merates the three Witnesses “who give testimony in 


22 Presumably since about the year 800. 


32 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


heaven,” as “the Father, the Word, and the Holy 
Ghost,” and expressly declares that “these three are 
one.” 7° Since the three Witnesses of whom the Apos- 
tle speaks are “in heaven,” they seem to be the three Di- 
vine Persons, and they must be really distinct from one 
another, because they are expressly referred to as of tpeis. 
Inasmuch as they are “one” (&, unum), there must 
exist between them a communication of nature, that is 
to say, their unity is not merely “ unitas in testificando,’ — 
but clearly also “identitas in essendo.”’ It is true St. 
John in the following verse also says of the three other 
witnesses who “ give testimony on earth,” viz.: “ the spirit, 
and the water, and the blood,” that “et hi tres unum 
sunt.” But he does not say: & eiow, but es 75 &v cow = 
im unum sunt, that is, they are one only in so far as they 
testify, not identical in substance.*4 


3. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE ComMA IOAN- 
NEUM.—On January 13, 1897, the Sacred Con- 
gregation of the Holy Office, with the approba- 
tion of His Holiness Pope Leo XIII, published 
the subjoined doctrinal decision:?° “Ad propo- 
sitionem, utrum tuto negari an in dubium vocari 
possit, esse authenticum textum tloa.V,7.... 
Eminentissimt Cardinales respondendum man- 
darunt: Negative —The doubt was proposed: 
‘Can it be safely denied, or at least doubted, that - 
the texto 1 john (Ve ey te aaithenticn 0) 


231 John V, 7: ““"Ort Tpeis Word, and the Holy Ghost. And 


elowv of bapTupourTes éy T@ ovpare, these three’ are one.” 

6 TAT HP, 6 Aovyos kal TO dy.ov 24 Cfr. Franzelin, De Deo Trino, 
mvevua: Kal ovTo. of Tpeis Ev elow thes. 5. 

— And there are three who give 25 Analect. Eccles., 1897, pp. 99 


testimony in heaven, the Father, the sq. 


‘THE COMMA IOANNEUM 23 


and the Most Eminent Cardinals answered, 
Now 


a) As soon as this decree became known, the opinion 
was expressed, even by Catholic scholars, that it meant 
a definitive decision in favor of the authenticity of the 
Comma Ioanneum, which could not henceforth be doubted 
or denied without challenging the defined right and duty 
of Holy Church to watch over and authoritatively deter- 
mine all questions connected with Sacred Scripture. 
Those who took this view forgot that a decree of the 
Holy Office, even when approved by the Pope “im 
forma communi,’ does not partake of the nature of an 
infallible decision. ‘That this is so, is manifest from the 
action of the same Congregation against Galilei, A.D. 
1633.2° The religious assent with which Catholics are 
bound to receive the decisions of the Holy Office,”’ 
is a duty growing out of Catholic respect for authority, 
and imposed by obedience. But it would be wrong to 
interpret it as forbidding deeper research into the 
soundness or unsoundness of a decision which does not 
per se claim to be infallible. The respect and obedience 
we owe to the Church will prompt us not to refuse our 
assent until it is positively certain, or at least highly 
probable, that the Sacred Congregation has made a mis- 
take. The Pope in his capacity of supreme teacher can- 
incident. We hope both will soon 


find an English translator. 
27See the letter addressed by 


26 On the decision against Galilei, 
see Adolf Miller, S. J., Der Gal- 
lei-Prozess (1632-1633) mach Ur- 


sprung, Verlauf und Folgen, Frei- 
burg 1909, pp. 191 sqq. This excel- 
lent work, together with the same 
author’s Galileo Galilei und das ko- 
pernikanische Weltsystem, Freiburg 
1909, is far and away the best ac- 
count of this much-mooted historical 


Pius IX to the Archbishop of Mu- 
nich, under date of Dec. 21, 1863 
(Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchirtdion, 
ne 4684)., . Cfr.) Pi As) Baart; The 
Roman Court, pp. 111 sq. New 
York 1895. 


34 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


not delegate his infallibility to any man or body of men; 
hence his approval of a congregational decree does not 
invest that decree with infallibility, unless indeed the 
Sovereign Pontiff sees fit, by an approbation “in forma 
solemni,” to raise it to the rank of an ex cathedra deci- 
sion solemnly binding all the faithful. This was not 
done in the present instance. | 

For the rest, it is well to remember that the decrees 
and decisions of the different Roman Congregations are 
as a rule disciplinary rather than doctrinal. They are 
for the most part designed to warn Catholic scholars 
against adopting doubtful theories until the reasons 
for and against have been thoroughly sifted. Thus it 
was in the early days of the Church in respect of 
the moot question regarding the existence of antipodes. 
Like value should be attached to the ecclesiastical de- 
cisions against the system of Copernicus, which has 
emerged victoriously from the violent conflict waged 
about it. Perhaps the decision of the Holy Office on 
the Comma Ioanneum belongs to the same category. 
In these parlous days, when Protestant and Rational- 
ist critics are sapping the very foundations of sound 
Biblical science, and in their eagerness to frame new 
hypotheses are trotting out a horde of critical monsters 
which forthwith proceed to devour one another, there is 
danger that Catholic savants may venture too far along 
slippery paths, losing sight completely of the firm ground 
of ecclesiastical Tradition.28 An immediate authorita- 
tive intervention in the controversy raging round the 
Comma Ioanneum seemed all the more advisable be- 
cause a definitive solution of the problem on purely 
scientific grounds could hardly be expected for a long 
time to come. Though it seems at present a highly im- 


28 Take, for example, the case of the unfortunate Abbé Loisy. 


THE COMMA IOANNEUM 35 


probable event, yet some ancient Greek or Latin palimp- 
sest may yet be unearthed, containing the Comma in an 
undoubtedly genuine and original form. The absence of 
the passage from so many New Testament codices could 
then be satisfactorily explained by an oversight of the 
copyists. G. Schepss has lately found the mooted text 
cited in a work of Priscillian’s newly discovered in 1889. 
At the present stage of the controversy, however, there is 
no blinking the fact that the critical arguments against 
the authenticity of the Comma Ioanneum considerably 
outweigh those adduced in its favor, 

b) The most weighty objection raised against the 
authenticity of 1 John V, 7 is based on the circumstance 
that the text is missing in all the older Greek codices 
without exception. Not until the fifteenth century does 
it begin to make its appearance in the manuscript copies 
of St. John’s First Epistle. Moreover, not one of the 
Greek Fathers who combated Arianism ever cited this 
strong passage, which would have dealt a death blow 
to the heresy of Subordinationism. In fact, when we 
observe how eagerly the Greek Fathers of the Nicene 
and Post-Nicene period conned their Bible for texts with 
which to refute the Arians, without ever lighting upon 
1 John V, 7, the only rational explanation is that the 
Comma Ioanneum was not there. Nor were the Latin 
Fathers (if we disregard a few faint and doubtful 
traces) acquainted with the text of the three heavenly 
Witnesses. St. Augustine, e. g., fails to cite it in his 
great work De Trinitate, in which with his customary 
ingenuity he turns to account practically all the Trin- 
itarian texts found in the whole Bible.2® He repeatedly 
quotes 1 John V, 8, but never once 1 John V, 7. What 


29 The Speculum Augustini ‘“ Audi Israhel” is spurious. Cfr. Barden- 
hewer-Shahan, Patrology, p. 505. 


36. THE TRINITY IN. THE NEW TESTAMENT 


is still more remarkable is that Leo the Great, in his 
dogmatic Epistula ad Flavianum (A.D, 451), quotes as 
Scriptural the verses that immediately precede, and sey- 
eral that follow the passage called Comma Ioanneum, 
but never alludes to the Comma itself. Nor was the 
Comma known to St. Jerome, who restored the Vulgate 
text by order of Pope Damasus. If the editors of the 
official edition, prepared under Pope Sixtus V and 
his predecessors, had recognized the spuriousness of 
the pseudo-Hieronymian prologue to the Catholic Epis- 
tles, now so apparent to all, the Comma would probably 
never have been incorporated in the Vulgate. The most 
ancient manuscript codices of the Vulgate — among them 
the Codex Fuldensis, the Codex Amiatinus, and the 
Codex Harleianus — and the oldest extant copies of the 
Greek Testament, do not contain the much discussed 
passage, which made its way very gradually since the 
eighth century. In England it was unknown to Saint 
Bede, who died in the year 735. 
~ But how did the text of the three heavenly Witnesses 
find its way into the Vulgate? All explanations that 
have been advanced so far are pure guesswork. The cir- 
cumstance that in certain manuscript codices the Comma 
occurs sometimes before and sometimes after verse 8, 
has suggested the hypothesis that it was originally a 
marginal note, which somehow crept into the text. 
Some think that a misunderstood remark by St. Cyprian 
first led to its reception. This would explain the early 
occurrence of the Comma in the African Church. St. 
Cyprian (+ 258) writes in his treatise De Unitate 
Ecclesiae, c. 6: “Dicit Dominus: ego et Pater unum 
sumus, et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto 
scriptum est: et tres unum sunt — The Lord sayeth: I 
and the Father are one; and again it is written of the 


THE COMMA IOANNEUM 37 


Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost: And the Three 
are one.” Of this passage, as Al. Schafer points out, 
only the words “ et tres unum sunt’ can be looked upon 
as a quotation from Sacred Scripture, and they may 
have been borrowed from the genuine eighth verse of 
the fifth chapter of St. John’s First Epistle.2° Facundus: 
of Hermiane (++ about 570), who had no inkling of the 
existence of the famous Comma, actually formulated this 
surmise: “Tres sunt qui testimonium dant, spiritus, 
aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt ... quod Ioannis 
testrmonium B. Cyprianus de Patre, Filio et Spiritu 
Sancto intelligit.” *+ Tertullian (born about 160) has a 
passage in his Contra Praxeam which sounds somewhat 
like the Comma,” but we may fairly doubt whether it is 
intended for a citation or merely expresses the author’s 
personal opinion. 

c) Against such arguments as these it is difficult to 
defend the authenticity of the Comma loanneum,?* 
which undeniably did not find its way into the Vulgate 
until the ninth century, while the Greek codices contain 
no trace of it prior to the fifteenth century.** All that 
can be said for the other side is that since the apographs 


30 Schafer, Einleitung in das N. nesses, Cambridge 1867. J. Lebre- 


T., p. 340, Paderborn 1898. 

31 Defens. Trium Capitul., I, 3. 

82 Contr. Prax., 25. The passage 
reads: ‘‘ Ita connexus Pairis in 
Filio et Filii in Paracleto tres effi- 
cit cohaerentes, alterum ab altero, 
qui tres unum sunt, non unus.” 

83 But few attempts at such a de- 
fense have been made in English 
since Dr. Wiseman published his 
well-known Letters on 1 John V, 7; 
e. g., by Lamy, in the American 
Ecclesiastical Review, 1897, pp. 449 
sqq. Cfr. also Ch. Forster, A New 
Plea for the Authenticity of the 
Text of the Three Heavenly Wit- 


Stun iohn vis 


ton gives a brief and impartial sum- 
mary of the present status of the 
controversy in an appendix (pp. 
524-531) of his work Les Origines 
du Dogme de la Trinité, Paris 1910. 

34 Of the Greek uncials every one 
that contains the First Epistle of 
without the Comma 
Ioanneum, Of the cursive MSS. of 
the Greek New Testament about one 
hundred and ninety do not include 
the passage, while only four contain 
it, and these four as text-witnesses 
are worthless, Cfr. W. L. Sullivan 
in the New York Review, Vol. II, 
(1906), No. 2, p. 180. 


38 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


of the earliest period are nearly all lost, there remains 
a bare possibility that the Comma Ioanneum may have 
occurred in one or the other of the most ancient, es- 
pecially African, codices. Some importance attaches to 
the fact that as early as 380 the Spanish heresiarch Pris- 
cillian cites as Scriptural the verse: “ Et tria sunt, quae 
testimonium dicunt in coelo, Pater, Verbum et Spiritus, 
et haec tria unum sunt.’** The main argument for 
the authenticity of the Comma is based upon a passage 
in the “ Libellus Fidei,’ which the Catholic Bishops ** 
who were cited by Hunneric, King of the Vandals, to 
meet the Arians in conference on Feb, 1, 484,°% sub- 
mitted in defense of their faith. The passage is as fol- 
lows: “ Et ut adhuc luce clarius unius divinitatis esse 
cum Patre et Filio Spiritum Sanctum doceamus, Ioannis 
Evangelistae testimonio comprobatur. Ait namque: 
Tres sunt, qui testimonium perlibent in coelo: Pater, 
Verbum et Spiritus Sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt.” *8 
St. Fulgentius (468-533), Bishop of Ruspe, in the Afri- 
can province of Byzazena, undoubtedly knew of the 
verse and, rightly or wrongly, ascribed a knowledge of 
it to St. Cyprian: “ Beatus Ioannes Apostolus testatur 
dicens: Tres sunt, qui testimonium perhibent in coelo, 
Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus, et tres unum sunt; 
quod etiam B. martyr Cyprianus in epistola de unitate 
ecclesiae confitetur’’*® The defense can also claim the 


35 Lib. Apologet., IV, ed. Schepss, sq. Cincinnati 1899; Sullivan in 
p. 6. Schepss, as we have already the New York Review, II, 2, 185 sq. 


intimated, discovered this lost work 88 Quoted by Hardouin, Conc., t. 
of Priscillian’s. in the Wurzburg li, p. 863. 
University Library in 1889. 39 Resp. ad Obiect. Arianorum, 


36 They included Victor of Vita 10. The passage of St. Cyprian’s, to 
(cfr. his Hist. Persecut., II, 56) which Fulgentius here refers, occurs 
and Vigilius of Tapsus. in the sixth chapter De Unitate Ec- 

37 Cfr. Alzog, Manual of Univer-  clesiae and reads as follows: ‘‘ Dicst 
sal Church History, Vol. II, p. 28 Dominus, ego et Pater unum sumus; 


THE COMMA IOANNEUM 39 


authority of Cassiodorus, who, about the middle of the 
sixth century, with many ancient manuscripts at his 
elbow, revised the entire Vulgate of St. Jerome, espe- 
cially the Apostolic Epistles, and deliberately inserted 1 
John V, 7, which St. Jerome had left out. If we con- 
sider all these facts, in connection with the passage quoted 
above from Tertullian, which bears the earmarks of a 
direct citation from Holy Scripture, we are justified in 
assuming that the Comma Ioanneum was perhaps found 
in copies of the Latin Bible current in Africa as early as 
the third century. 

d) The dogmatic authenticity of 1 John V, 7, is quite 
another matter. It can be satisfactorily established by 
a purely theological process of reasoning. The Comma 
Ioanneum played a prominent part at the Fourth Lateran 
Council, A.D. 1215, where Abbot Joachim of Flora 
adduced it in favor of his tritheistic vagaries. In the 
Caput “ Damnamus,’ which solemnly condemns _ his 
errors, we read: “Non enim (ait Joachim). fideles 
Christi sunt unum, 1. e., quaedam una res, quae com- 
munis sit omnibus, sed hoc modo sunt unum, 1. e., una 
ecclesia, propter catholicae fidei unitatem ... quemad- 
modum in canonica Ioannis Apostoli epistula legitur: 
“quia tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in coelo, Pater 
et Filius [stc!] et Spiritus Sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt.’ 
Statimque subiungitur: Et tres sunt, qui testimonium 
dant in terra, spiritus, aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum 
sunt: sicut in quibusdam codicibus invenitur.” * Though 
we have here the express testimony of a council of the 


et tterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu 
Sancto scriptum est: et tres unum 
sunt.” It is, as Tischendorf has 
tightly observed, by far the weight- 
iest proof for the Comma Ioanneum. 
But it does not prove decisively that 
St. Cyprian used a New Testament 


text which contained the ** Comma”; 
and if it did, it would by no means 
follow that the verse was written by 
St. John. Cfr. Sulliyan in the New 
York Review, II, 2, pp. 182 sq. 

40 Quoted by Denzinger-Bannwart, 
Enchiridion, n. 431. 


! 


4o THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Church that the Comma occurs only in certain codices, 
jt is to be noted that this council does not reject the 
text of the three heavenly witnesses as apocryphal or 
spurious, or as having been smuggled into the Buble. 
The strongest dogmatical argument, according to 
Franzelin*! and Kleutgen,#? is that drawn from the 
Tridentine decree De Canonicis Scripturis: “Si quis 
libros integros cum omnibus suis partibus, prout in 
ecclesia catholica legi consueverunt et in vetert vulgata 
latina editione habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non 
susceperit, .. . anathema sit.” 48 Franzelin and Kleut- 
gen argue that since the Comma Ioanneum, being an 
important ‘‘ dogmatic text,’ must be regarded as an in- 
tegral part of Sacred Scripture, and as it undoubtedly 
formed part of the ancient Latin Vulgate, its canonical 
authenticity is fully covered by the Tridentine decree. 
If this claim were well founded, the whole discus- 
sion would have been irrevocably closed in the six- 
teenth century. But Franzelin and Kleutgen overshoot 
the mark. The Tridentine decree settles nothing either 
for or against the authenticity of the Comma loanneum. 
For, as Schafer points out,** the decree is distinctly 
limited by the phrases “ prout in ecclesia catholica legt 
consueverunt,” and “et in veteri vulgata latina editione 
habentur.” Of these limitations the former does not 
fully apply to the Comma Ioanneum, and the latter 
can not affect the official edition of the Vulgate is- 
sued in 1592. Of the earlier editions many were no- 
toriously without the Comma. Consequently, the clause 
“ omnibus suis partibus” is not strictly applicable to 1 John 
V, 7. This argument is strengthened by the testimony 


41 De Deo Trino, thes. 4. 44 Einleitung in das Neue Testa- 
42 De Ipso Deo, pp. 519 saa. ment, pp. 341 sqq., Paderborn 1898. 
43 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchirid1- 

on, n. 784. 


THE COMMA IOANNEUM 4I 


of the Fourth Lateran Council, which we have already 
quoted, to the effect that in the 13th century the Comma 
Loanneum was found only in a few codices (“in quibus- 
dam codicibus invenitur”). The fact that there still ex- 
ist over fifty ancient manuscript codices of the Vulgate 
which lack the Comma Ioanneum is too remarkable to be 
brushed aside as irrelevant. The scientific aspect of the 
problem, therefore, is not touched by the Tridentine 
decree at all, and the Comma itself remains a doubtful 
text. Franzelin in another treatise admits this conten- 
tion in principle.*® 

For the rest, it is plain that Rome does not wish to 
bolt the door to further critical research. Very soon 
after the Inquisition had promulgated its decree of Jan. 
13, 1897, Cardinal Vaughan replied to a query from 
Mr. Wilfrid Ward: “TI have ascertained from an ex- 
cellent source that the decree of the Holy Office on 
the passage of the ‘Three Witnesses,’ which you refer 
to, is not intended to close the discussion on the 
authenticity of that text; the field of Biblical criticism 
is not touched by this decree.” Availing himself of the 
liberty thus granted, Professor Karl Kiinstle, of the 
University of Freiburg in Baden, has lately attempted 
to throw new light on the origin of the Comma, and 
has succeeded in making it appear extremely probable 
that it was formulated by Priscillian, about A. D. 380, 
in the heretical wording: “ Et haec tria unum sunt in 
Christo Iesu,’ in support of his Sabellian Pan-Christism, 
and that it was recast in an orthodox mould by some 


45 De Script. et Trad., ed. 4, p. 
489, Romae 1896: ‘“ Si de aliquo tali 
textu posset demonstrari, non esse 
ex veteri vulgata editione,” he says, 
“eius conformitas cum Scriptura 
primitiva non posset dici per decre- 
tum Concilii declarata. Qui ergo 


textum ita admittit vel non admittit, 
prout exstat vel non exstat in veteri 
vulgata editione, quae longo saecu- 
lorum usu in ecclesia probata est, 
is nihil agit contra decretum Con- 
cil.” 


42 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Catholic theologian ** (possibly pseudo-Vigilius of Tap- 
sus) and inserted into the text of St. John’s First Epis- 
tle by one “ Peregrinus,” who is believed to have been a 
monk named Bachiarius. The Comma is probably of 
Spanish origin.* 


READINGS: —*Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. I, §107 (Wilhelm- 
Scannell, Manual, I, pp. 265 sqq.).— Oswald, Dogmatische The- 
ologie, Vol. II: Trinitatslehre, §3, Paderborn 1888.— J. Lebre- 
ton, Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinité, pp. 207 sqq., 524 sqq., 
Paris 1910. Brown, Stephen J., S.J., “ The Dogma of the Trinity 
in the Synoptic Gospels,” in the American Ecclesiastical Review, 
Sixth Series, Vol. II (LII), No. 5, May 1915, pp. 513-523. Other 
bibliographical references in the footnotes. 


46 “ Whether the celebrated pas- 
sage... be genuine or not,” says 
Newman, “‘it is felicitously descrip- 
tive of the Ante-Nicene tradition. 

.”? Tracts Theol. and Eccles., p. 
159. 

47 K. Kiinstle, Das “ Comma Ioan- 
neum” auf seine Herkunft unter- 
sucht, Freiburg 1905; summarized 
by W. L. Sullivan, C.S. P., in the 
New York Review, Vol. Il (1906), 
No. 2, pp. 175-188. Cfr. also Chr. 


Pesch, S. J., Praelect. Dogmat., 3rd 
ed., t. II, pp. 255 sqq., Friburgi 
1906. Kiinstle’s supposition that the 
Comma was invented by Priscillian 
himself is combatted by E. C. Babut, 
Priscillien et le Priscillianisme, pp. 
267 sqq., Paris 1909. Other refer- 
ences may be found in Cornely’s 
Introd. in Utriusque Testamenti Li- 
bros Sacros, Vol. III, pp. 668 sqq., 
Paris 1886. 


SECTION 3 


NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS TREATING OF THE DIVINE 
PERSONS SEVERALLY 


In demonstrating the dogma of the Most Holy 
Trinity from those texts of Sacred Scripture 
which treat of the Divine Persons severally, we 
shall have to establish three distinct truths: 
(1) The reality of each Divine Person in contra- 
distinction to mere personification; (2) the non- 
coincidence of éach Person With the others, in 
_contradistinction to the Sabellian heresy which 
confuses them; and (3) the Divinity of each 
Person, in opposition to the Arian and Mace- 
donian doctrine that the Son or the Holy Ghost 
is a creature. 


As “Logos” is manifestly synonymous with Son of 
God, and “ Paraclete” with Holy Ghost, there cannot 
be five Divine Persons, but only three. To establish the 
hypostatic difference of these three is the purpose of the 
first two members of this argument, while the third 
shows forth the absolute unity of the Divine Nature 
possessed by the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity 
in common. 

The most important part of our task in this Section 
is to establish the true Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ, 


43 
4 


44 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


a conception which fully harmonizes with the dogma of 
the Blessed Trinity and sets forth with great clearness 
its two fundamental marks, viz.: Trinity and Unity. 
For, as Gossler pertinently observes, “ Belief ~in, and 
knowledge of, the Triune God is conditioned upon be- 
lief in, and knowledge of, the Son of God.’* The 
combined results of exegetical research ultimately lead 
to the dogma of a real Trinity of Persons in one divine 
and indivisible Monad. 


ARTICLE 1 


OF GOD THE ates staes 


1. Gop’s FATHERHOOD IN. THE ” FIGURATIVE 
_ SENSE OF THE TERM.—The Biblical use of the 
name “Father” indicates that He to whom it 
is applied is a real person. It also proves His 
Divinity. But it_does not necessarily argue that 
He is a father in the strict sense of the term, 
or that He is the “first” in a group of three 
Divine Persons. _ 


There is a human fatherhood which is merely analog- 
ical and figurative. 2 Similarly Holy Scripture often re- 
fers to the Godhead, 7. e., the whole Blessed Trinity, as 
“Father” in a purely Bere or metaphorical sense. 
Thus God is in a certain sense the Father of His 
creatures by the act of creation and the fact of His 
Divine Providence. Cfr. Job XXXVIII, 28: “God 

. the father of rain” (“ pater pluviae,” 1. e., auctor 

1 Lehrb. d. kath. Dogmatik, I, 2, denoted by such terms as stepfather, 


p. 133, Ratisbon 1874. father confessor, father of the 
2Take for example the relation Church. 


GOD THE FATHER 4s 


pluviae). WHebr. XII, 9: ‘“‘ The father of spirits (pater 
spirituum).”’ He is called in a special manner “ Father 
of men,’ or Father of the human race, because He 
created humankind out of pure benevolence and with 
paternal solicitude provides for their needs.* In the Old 
Testament Jehovah’s relation to His Chosen People 
formed the basis of a particularly cordial and intimate 
kinship, which might well be styled fatherhood. Cfr. 
Deut. XXXII, 6: “Numquid non ipse est Pater tuus, 
qui possedit te et fecit et creavit te — Is not he thy father, 
that hath possessed thee, and made thee, and created 
thee?” Jer. XXXI,9: “ Quia factus swum Israeli Pater 
et Ephraim primogenitus meus est — For I am a father 
to Israel, and Ephraim is my first-born.” It is a proof 
of the depth of feeling and the keen insight which 
distinguishes the Aryan nations that, though deprived 
of the benefits of supernatural Revelation, they fixed 
upon fatherhood as the characteristic note of God. 
Such appellations as the Sanskrit Dyaus Pitar, the 
Greek Zebs rarnp, and the Latin Jupiter, indicate that 
God impressed them above all else as the Father of 
men. 

God’s supernatural fatherhood with regard to man is 
related to the natural fathertood’of which we have just 
spoken, as light is related to shadow, or as being to 
nothingness. From the purely natural point of view 
God is our master rather than our father, and we are 
His slaves rather than His children.*. But sanctifying 
grace elevates us to the supernatural rank of “children — 
of God,” inasmuch as it gives us “ power to be made 
the sons of God,” if we “ believe in his name” and are 


8 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, pp. 
260 sqq. 4 Cfr. Gal. IV, 7. 


46 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


“born of God.”® Rom. VIII, 15: “Non enim acce- 
pistis spiritum servitutis iterum in timore, sed accepistis 
spiritum adoptionis filiorum, in quo clamamus: Abba, 
Pater — For you have not received the spirit of bondage 
again in fear, but you have received the spirit of adop- 
tion of sons, whereby we cry: Abba (Father).” 1 
Cor. VIII, 6: “Yet to us there is but one God, the 
Father (eis @eds, 6 matnp).” It is in this sense that we 
daily pray: ‘Our Father, who art in Heaven.” ® 


2. Gop’s FATHERHOOD IN THE STRICT SENSE 
OF THE TERM.—Besides and above the figurative 
paternity of God, there is peculiar to Him an- 
other and higher fatherhood. This is based not 
on His (natural or supernatural) relations to 
His creatures, but on a mysterious vital process 
immanent in the ‘Deity. Revelation tells us 
that God has from all eternity begotten a Son of 
the same substance with Himself, the “wnigenitus 
Piltus, qui est m sinu Patris.’* This phys- 
ical, or, more correctly speaking, metaphysical, 
divine Sonship must have for its necessary cor- 
relative in the Godhead a true Fatherhood in the 
proper sense of the term. Hence the name 
“Father” is applied to God as a nomen pro- 
prium, or proper name, and it follows with 
logical necessity that there is a First Person in 
the Godhead. For, being a pure spirit, God 
the Father can have a natural, coessential son 


& John I, 12 sa. ** Father”? is used Needy as a 
6 Matth. VI, 9. In this as well as nomen appellativum s. commune. 
in many other Scriptural passages, 7 John I, 18, 
Aa 


GOD’S FATHERHOOD 47 


(flius naturalis) only in so far as, by virtue of 

eternal generation, He communicates the fulness 
of His Divine Nature to a Second Person, who 
must in consequence be the true Son of God, and 
therefore Himself God. Cfr. 2 Pet. I, 1 Tipe ay» Vine 
cipiens enim a Deo Patre honorem et gloriam, 
voce delapsa ad eum huiuscemodi a magnifica 
gloria: Hic est Filius meus dilectus, in quo miht 
complacut, ipsum audite — For he received from 
God the Father honor and glory: this voice 
coming down to him from the excellent glory: 
This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well 
pleased; hear ye him.” No one felt the force 
of this argument more keenly than the unbe- 
lieving Jews. Cfr. John V, 18: “Propterea 
ergo magis quaerebant eum Iudaei interficere, 
quia non solum solvebat sabbatum, sed et Patrem 
suum dicebat Deum, aequalem se faciens Deo 
(tarépa idvov edeye tov edv, toov éavrdv Towv 7@ Op) — 
Hereupon therefore the Jews sought the more to 
kill him, because he did not only break the sab- 
bath, but also said God was his Father, making 
himself equal to God.” 

The sacred writers frequently emphasize God’s 
peculiar and singular Paternity, and quite consist- 
ently depict it as the pattern and exemplar of all 
creatural fatherhood. Cfr. 2 Cor. I, 3: “Bene- 
dictus Deus et Pater Domini nostri lesu Christi 
— Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord 


48 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Jesus Christ.” Eph. III, 14 sq.: “Flecto genua 
mea ad Patrem Domini nostri Iesu Christi, ex 
quo [scil. Patre| omnis paternitas in coelis et in 
terra nominatur — | bow my knees to the Father 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom all paternity 
in heaven and earth is named.” 

This inner-divine Paternity cannot be predi- 
cated of the Divine Nature or Essence as such— 
for the Divine Essence neither begets nor is be- 
gotten. ‘Hence it must consist in a relative op- 
position between the Father and the Son. Conse- 
quently, the Father-is a Person distinct from the 
Son; and inasmuch as paternity is notionally 
prior to sonship, He is the First Person of the 
Blessed Trinity. 

It is to be noted that the Antitrinitarians never 
denied that the Father is a real person, or that 
He is true God. What they disputed was that 
the Father is the First Person of the Godhead. 
And in this they were quite consistent; for had 
they admitted that proposition, they would have 
been forced to admit also that there is a Second 
Person, namely, the Divine Son. It is this 
truth we now proceed to demonstrate from Holy 
Scripture. 

Reapincs:—On the theology of the Father, cfr. Eyeiaricte 
Dogmat. Theologie, 2nd ed., Vol. IV, pp. 139 sqq., Mainz 1885; 
Oswald, Trinitétslehre, § 4; Simar, Dogmatik, 4th ed., Vol. I, 
pp. 228 sqq. Freiburg 1809; Fr. H. Chase, The Lord’s Prayer 


in the Early Church, Cambridge 1891. Also S. Thom., S. Theol., 
La. au: 133. 


GOD THE SON 49 


ARTICLE 2 


OF GOD THE SON 


e 


In the sublime text John I, 14: “Kat 6 Adyos 
aap éyevero — And the Word was made flesh,” the 
dogma of the Blessed Trinity and the dogmatic 
teaching of the Church in regard to Jesus Christ 
run together into one. For this reason nearly 
all Scriptural passages that can be cited in proof 
of Christ’s being the Only-begotten Son of God 
likewise offer solid arguments for the dogma 
that He is both the true Son of God and the 
Divine Logos, and consequently the Second 
Person of the Godhead. It will be sufficient to 
show, therefore, in this division of our treatise, 
(1) that Christ is the true Son of God, (2) 
that He is very God, and (3) that He is the 
Divine Logos. There is no need of a special 
demonstration to prove that Christ is a real per- 
son and not a mere personification. 


A. Christ’s Divine Sonship 


1. THE TERM “Son oF Gop” as USED IN A 
METAPHORICAL SENSE.—If, as we have shown, 


God can assume towards His rational creatures 


the relation of a father, these creatures must be 
capable of becoming, in a certain sense, sons or 
children of God. 


50 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


a) Taking the term in a higher sense, man can be- 
come a son of God only in the supernatural order, as 
we shall show in the treatise on Grace, where we speak 
of Justification. Cfr. Matth. V, 9: “ Blessed are the 
peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of 
God.” But, as Holy Scripture clearly intimates, this 
supernatural sonship of the creature is not a sonship 
in the strict sense of the term; it is based on adop- 
tion.® Though this filiatio adoptiva is sharply con- 
trasted with natural sonship,® inasmuch as the Bible 
traces it to the fact of the creature’s “ regeneration of 
God,” ?° nay, even calls it a participation in the Divine 
Nature, it is to be remarked that the last-mentioned 
two notions never lose their accidental and analogous 
character, because they are conditioned by sanctifying 
grace, of which the filiatio adoptiva is the chief formal 
effect. 

b) The important question we have here to solve is 
whether “ Son of God”’ is applied to Christ merely as an 
‘analogous term. In that case, though He would still out- 
rank God’s other adopted children, Jesus would be no 
more than a primus inter pares. That He outranks all 
other men appears clearly enough from the fact that He 
alone is called in Holy Scripture, 6 vids tov Ocov,— the 
Son of God. There are texts in which mere creatures 
are referred to as “sons of God,” but in all these 
texts the subject is either in the plural,’? or it is a col- 


8 Adoptio filiorum, vio@ecia. On 11 Cfr. 2 Pet. I, 4: “ Oelas xou- 


supernatural adoption, see Sollier in 
the Catholic Encyclopedia, I, 148 
sqq. 

9 Filiatio naturalis. 
“10 Regeneratio, Gr. manvyyeveoia, 
Cfr. J. Pohle, s. wv. ‘* Wiederge- 
burt,’’ in Herder’s Kirchenlexikon, 


XII, 1468 sqq., Freiburg 1901. 


vovol picews,” 
L2Cirs Fob. ther Gs il tts) eta 


Hebr. ons Rome VEL, ors: 
© Accepistis spiritum adoptionis filio- 


rum Deit— You have received the 
spirit of adoption of sons.” 


CHRIST’S DIVINE SONSHIP SI 


lective term,'* or an indefinite singular really amount- 
ing to a plural.* The only passage which seems to 
offer an exception is 2 Kings VII, 15: “Ego ero ei 
[scil. Salomont] in patrem, et ipse erit mihi in filium — 
I will be to him [Solomon] a father, and he shall be to 
me a son,” but St. Paul expressly interprets this passage 
as referring typically to Christ: “Cui dixit aliquando 
angelorum: . . . Ego ero illi in patrem, et ipse erit mihi 
in fiium? — For to which of the angels hath he said at 
any time: ... I will be to him a father, and he shall 
be to me a son?” +> In the light of these texts no one 
can deny that Christ is the Son of God in a higher 
sense than any angel or man. But there still remains a 
doubt as to whether Filius Dei is applied to Him as a 
proper name, or merely as an appellative; that is to say, 
whether He is the Son of God in the strict or merely 
in a figurative sense, i. e., by adoption. 


2. CHRIST THE SON OF GoD IN THE STRICT 
SENSE OF THE TERM.—The Socinians and the 
Rationalists, Hugo Grotius among others, allege 
that Filius Dei is merely an official title of the 
Messias, bearing no intrinsic relation to any di- 
vine filiation; in other words, that Christ, in vir- 
tue of His supernatural birth from the Blessed 
Virgin Mary,” is called “Son of God” in a higher, 
though not in an essentially different sense than 
other rational creatures. The F rench Abbé Al- 


13 Exod. IV, 22: “Filius meus as the obedient son oe the most 
primogenitus Israel—Israel is my High.” 
son, my firstborn.” 15 Heb. I, 5. 

14Ecclus. IV, 311: “Et eris tu 16 Modern Rationalists notoriously 


[scil. misericors] velut filius altis- also deny the Virgin Birth, 
simi obediens — And thou shalt be 


s2. THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


fred Loisy adopts this Rationalist error when he 
writes: “The title ‘Son of God’ was accepted 
by the Jews, by the Disciples, and by the Saviour 
Himself as a synonym for ‘Messias.’” ** ‘True, 
“Son of God” was the official title of the Mes- 
sias; but it was a title based upon a reality, 2. é., 
Christ’s Divine Sonship in the strict sense of the 
term. It is a mistake on the part of some Cath- 
olic theologians to concede the assertion of Ra- 
tionalist exegetes that, while the true Divine 
Sonship of Jesus appears clearly enough from 
the Apostolic Letters and the Fourth Gospel, 
it cannot be proved from the Synoptics. The 
conduct of the Jews and our Saviour’s own re- 
iterated declarations, as recorded in the Gospels 
of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, clearly 
prove the contrary. 

a) Though the Jews knew, and could not help 
knowing from their own sacred writings, that 
the future Messias would be God Himself, they 
were not accustomed to refer to Him of their 
own accord as “God,” or “Son of God.” They 
called Him either “son of David,” ** or “King of 
Israel,” * or “the Prophet,” or “the Messias,”’ 
that is Christ (2 = xpwrds), Nevertheless 


117 L’Evangile et L’Eglise, p. 62, especially pp. 320 sqq. as bearing on 


Paris 1902. Against Loisy see M. the point here under consideration. 
Lepin’s scholarly work Christ and 18 Cfr. Matth. IX, 27; XII, 23; 
the Gospel, or Jesus the Messiah XX, 30; XXI, 9; Mark XI, 1o. 
and Son of God, Authorized Eng- 19 Matth. XXVII, 42. 


lish edition, Philadelphia 1910. See 20 John I, 21: VI, 14; VII, 40. 


CHRIST’S DIVINE SONSHIP 53 


they logically concluded from Christ’s repeated 
references to Himself as Son of God, that He 
claimed consubstantiality with the Godhead, 
in other words, true Divinity.2* Similarly the 
Synoptics, by weaving into their story sayings 
that can apply to none other than the Son of God 
in the strictest sense of the term, or by accom- 
panying their profession of faith in the “true Son 
of God’ with a latreutic act of adoration, plainly 
demonstrate that they mean to apply the name 
to Jesus in its proper, not in a figurative, sense. 
When He was baptized in the Jordan,’* “there 
came a voice from heaven, saying: This is my 
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” The 
Greek text has:  Otrds éorw 6 vids pov 6 dyamnrtds, re- 
peating the definite article to emphasize the 
unique role of the Son. Before the institution, 
or, more correctly, before the promise of the 
primacy, Peter had first to profess his faith in 
the Divine Sonship of Jesus. Matth. XVI, 15 
sqq.: “Whom do you say that I am? Simon 
Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the 
Son of the living God (ov ei 6 Xpiotds, 6 vids TOV Oeov 
ov Cavros),”” Like the other Apostles, Peter had 
long before believed in the Messianic mission 
and dignity of his Master; hence his profession 
of faith as recorded in Matth. XVI, 16, can only 


21 John 'V; 18; X;. 33. 
22 Matth. III, 13 sqq.; Mark I, 9 sqq.; Luke III, 21 sqq. 


54 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


mean: “Thou art not only the Christ, 7. e., the 
Messias, but likewise the true Son~of God.” 
This view is confirmed by our Saviour’s reply: 
“Beatus es, Simon Bar Iona, quia caro et san- 
guis non revelavit tibi, sed Pater meus, qui 
nm coelis est— Blessed art thou, Simon Bar- 
Jona, because flesh and blood [1. e., human rea- 
son] hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father 
who is in heaven.” That is to say, Peter’s 
knowledge and his profession of faith in Christ’s 
Divine Sonship was owing to a direct revelation 
and the grace of faith.?? When the Disciples “in 
the midst of the sea” saw Jesus stretching out 
His hand and saving Peter, who at His Mas- 
ter’s bidding had ventured upon the angry waves, 
they were overpowered by the glorious miracle 
and “adored Him, saying: Indeed thou art the 
son. of God;?’'3# 

b) This argument is supported by Christ’s own 
testimony. The Synoptics tell us as distinctly as 
do SS. John and Paul, that not only did He 
always and everywhere assert His Divine Son- 
ship, but He finally sealed it with His blood. 
When Caiphas adjured Him by the living God, 
saying: “Tell us if thou be the Christ the son 
of God,’’?° Jesus solemnly replied: “Thou hast 


23 Cfr. Schanz, Kommentar iiber  raverunt eum dicentes: Vere Filius 
das Evangelium des hl. Matthéus, Dei es (ad\nO&s Oeod vids el)” 
Pp. 375, Mainz 1879. 25 Ki ot el 6 Xpiorés, 6 vids Tov 

24 Matth. XIV, 33: ‘‘ Qui autem cov, 
in navicula erant, venerunt et ado- 


CHRIST’S DIVINE SONSHIP 55 


said it.” ?° And when, in confirmation of His 
oath, the Saviour significantly assured His ques- 
tioner that he would yet see Him sitting on the 
right hand of the power of God, and coming 
in the clouds of heaven to judge mankind, “the 
high priest rent his garments, saying: He hath 
blasphemed.” 7 In asserting His Divine Son- 
ship, therefore, Christ asserted His Divinity, 
and the Sanhedrin, regarding this assertion as 
blasphemous, acted with perfect consistency when 
they condemned Him to an ignominious death. 
According to the Gospel of St, Luke, they 
“brought him into their council, saying: If thou 
bee tne @hrist: tell ts S3. fin es Christus, dic 
nobis,” ®* and when Jesus had assured them that 
He would sit “on the right hand of the power of 
God,” they asked Him: “Art thot then the Son 
of God? (ov oby ei 6 vids Tov cod ) ?”’ and He firmly 
and definitely answered: “You say that I am 
(dpeis Aéyere, dru eyd eijw) ”? Whereupon He was led 
to Pilate, and they accused Him of claiming that 
He was “Christ the king,” 2° and that “He made 
Himself the Son of God.” ® It is not too much 
to say, therefore, that Christ laid down His life 
for the truth of His solemn affirmation that He 
was really and truly “the Son of God.’ The 


26 Sv elas = Yes. 29 Luke XXIII, “2: “Dixit se 
27 Matth. XXVI, 63 sqq. Christum regem esse.” 
28 Luke XXII, 66 sq. 30 John XIX, 7: “ Filium Dei se 


fecit.” 


56. THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Fourth Gospel and the Epistles of St. Paul verify, 
continue, and complete the story of the Synop- 
tics.** 

3. THE TEACHING OF ST. JOHN AND ST. PAUL 
ON Curist’s DIVINE Sonsuip.—The Saviour’s 
favorite disciple, the meek and gentle John, both 
in character and temperament differed radically 
from the fiery Paul; yet their teaching in regard 
to Christ agrees in every essential detail, and it 
may be truly said that the Johannine Christology 
is characterized by a Pauline depth of thought, 
while the teaching of St. Paul has a distinctly 
Johannean tinge. Both Apostles are at one in 
affirming that the Divine Sonship of Christ is a 
true sonship in the strict sense of the term, and 
therefore essentially different from the sonship 
predicated of angels and men. 

a) The epithets applied to Jesus by both SS. 
John and Paul are with quite evident intent so 
chosen as to exclude absolutely the “sensus im- 
proprius.’ 

Both call Christ His. Heavenly Father’s “own Son” 
(Filius proprius, iws vids). Rom. VIII, 32: “Qua 
proprio Filio suo (rov idtov viov) non pepercit — He 
spared not even his own Son.” John V, 18: “ Patrem 


suum (narépa tSiov) dicebat Deum, aequalem se faciens Deo 
— Jesus also said God was his Father, making himself 
31 Cfr. B. Bartmann, Das Him- 1904; M. Eeping Christ and the 


melreich und sein Konig nach den Gospel, pp. 394 sqq. 
Synoptikern, pp. 107 sqq., Paderborn 


CHRIST’S DIVINE SONSHIP 57 


equal to God.” He is the Father’s “beloved Son,” into 
whose kingdom we are translated.3? He is “ the only 
begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father — 
Unigenitus Filius (6 fovoyerns vids), qui est in sinu Pa- 
tris,’ ** the Son begotten by the eternal Father.** This 
note of unicity, which is especially accentuated by St. 
John, plainly implies that the Father has no other son 
but Christ.** Consequently Christ is truly the Son of God 
in precisely the same sense in which God is “ true God.” 
Cir. 1 John V, 20: “Scimus quoniam Filius Dei (6 
vids Tov @cod) venit, et dedit nobis sensum, ut cogno- 
scamus verum Deum (rov ddnOwov @cdv) et simus in vero 
Filo eius — And we know that the Son of God is come: 
and he hath given us understanding that we may know 
the true God, and may be in his true Son.” 


b) These texts appear still more significant 
if collated with certain other Scriptural passages, 
which expressly declare that the Divine Sonship 
of Christ is a sonship in the strict and proper 
sense of the term. 


If there existed any higher beings who, as “sons of 
God,” might claim precedence of Christ, they would 
certainly be the angels of Heaven. Now we have the 
distinct teaching of St. Paul that the angels are bound 
to adore Christ as “the Son of God” and “the first- 
born of the Father.” Hebr. I, 5 sq.: “Cui enim dixit 
aliquando angelorum: Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genus 
te? ... Et cum iterum introducit primogenitum (mpwrd- 


82Cfr. Col. I, 13: “Qui nos (“83 John I, 18; cfr. Lepin, op. cit., 
transtulit in. regnum Filii dilectionis pp" 330 sqq. _ 
suae’’ (a Hebraism for: “ Filit di- 84 Hebr.. V7 5... Cle” Pe. I> 7%. 
dectt sui”’;. cfr. 2 Pet. I, 17). 30°Cir. John I, 14; III, 16, 18; 2 


John IV, 9, 


58 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


toxov) im orbem terrae, dicit: Et adorent eum [se. 
Christum] omnes angeli Dei — For to which of the an- 
gels hath he said at any time: Thou art my Son, to- 
day I have begotten thee. ... And when he again 
bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith: 
And let all the angels of God adore him.” Among the 
many favored children of grace, especially the prophets 
and the Lord’s anointed, whom Sacred Scripture some- 
times calls “sons of God,” or even “ gods,” because of 
their exalted dignity, in the opinion of the Jews and of 
St. Paul none was greater than Jehovah’s favorite 
servant, Moses.** And yet St. Paul, comparing him with 
Christ, says that Moses is merely a “ faithful servant in 
the house of God,” while Jesus is “as the Son in his — 
own house.” *? It is only in the light of these facts 
that we are able fully to appreciate the further teach- 
ing of SS. John and Paul, that, as the heavenly Father- 
hood of God is the prototype of all created paternity, so 
the Divine Sonship of Christ is the exemplar of all de- 
rived or adoptive sonship. Cfr. John I, 12: “ Dedit eis 
potestatem filios Dei fiert, his qui credunt in nomine eius 
[scil. unigeniti a Patre] —He gave them power to be 
made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name ” 
(1. é., in the name of the Only-begotten of the Father. 
John I, 14). Gal. IV, 4sq.: “ Misit Deus Filium suum 
(tov vidv abrod) ... ut adoptionem filiorum (rv viobe- 
aiav) reciperemus — God sent his son . . . that we might 
receive the adoption of sons.” 


c) The teaching of St. John culminates in the 
notion of the Divine Logos; that of St. Paul in 


36 Cfr. Deut. XXXIV, 10; Heb. [sc. Dei] tamquam famulus (és 
III, 1 sqq. Oepdmwy), .. . Christus vero tam- 

37 Heb. III, 5 sq.: “Et Moyses quam Filius in domo sua (ds vlds 
quidem fidelis erat in tota domo eius émt roy olkov avrov).” 


CHRIST'S DIVINE (SONSHIEP alias 


the cognate conception of Christ as the image of 
God and splendor of His glory. Cfr. 2 Cor. 
IV, 4: “Imago Dei («xév cod) ;” Col. I, 15: 
“Tmago Dei invisibilis.” With an unmistakable 


allusion to St. John’s teaching on the Divine 
meee: the Apostle of the Gentiles defines this 
“image of the invisible God” as splendor gloriae 
son THs 8d&s) and as fi gura substantiae eius 
(xapaxrinp THS VTOCTAGEWS saan doe “the brightness of 
the glory of God” and “the heure, of! his’ sub... 
Stance 7° 


palverenbeslinahins, 


Of elds two terms the former expresses the con- 
substantiality (homoousia), the latter the personal sel f- 
_ existence of the Son side by side with the Father. Both 
these truths are also taught in the Fourth Gospel : °° 
“The Word was God” and “the Word was with God.” 
That St. Paul *° employs the phrases “ brightness of his 
glory” and “figure of his substance” not in any crea- 
tural sense, but absolutely, is made manifest by the 
second part of the sentence in which they occur.* 
There he ascribes to Christ none but divine attributes: 
“Portansque omnia verbo virtutis suae, purgationem 
peccatorum faciens, sedet ad dexteram maiestatis in ex- 
celsis — Upholding all things by the word of his power, 
making purgation of sins, [Christ] sitteth on the right 
hand of the majesty on high.” 42 Therefore Christ is 
the “image of the Divine Substance” in so far as He 
is strictly and truly the “Son of God,” which further 


38 Tego hs 3. Xapaxrnp, cfr. Lebreton, Les Ori- 
‘38 John I, re gines du ‘Dogme de la Trinité, p. 
40 Heb. I, 3. 348. 

41 On the terms amavyacua and 42 Heb. I, 3: 


) 


60 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


appears from Heb. I, 2: “ Diebus istis [Deus] locutus 
est nobis in Filio, . per quem fecit et saecula—In 
these days [God] hath spoken to us by his Son, .. 
by whom he also made the world.” 4? While the term 
dravyacua THs O0éns represents the Father as “ light,” and 
the Son as the reflection of this light (for this reason He 
is called Jumen de lumine as well as Deus de Deo),‘* 
the locution yapaxtnp ras troordcews abtod complements 
the former by emphasizing the independent subsistence of 
the Son of God (1. e., Christ) in His relative opposition 
to God the Gane point which the Fathers of the 
Church did not fail to insist upon in their early conflicts 
with Photinus and Sabellius. 


d) The Scriptural teaching so far developed 
furnishes us with a key for interpreting those 
numerous texts which speak of the eM Galt 
ot Christ. : : 


The i only begotten Son” (unigenitus, povoyevhs) alone 
is and always remains the “firstborn” (primogenitus, 
- mpwrdroxos).*® No creature can claim to be His equal in 
“birth or dignity. St. Paul’s teaching on this head is 
most clearly developed in his Epistle to the Colossians. 
There he distinguishes in Christ a twofold “right of the 
firstborn ”: the one divine, the other human; the former 
“based upon the title of creation, edae nab, and final 


43 Cfr. John I, 10, 3. 

44 Cir. W. Humphrey, 
“ His Divine Majesty,” 
London 1897. 

d 45 “ Ilpwrdroxos is not an exact 

translation of Primogenitus, though 
Homer, as Petavius says, may use 
rixkrw for gigno. It is never used 
in Scripture for Only-begotten, We 


Se dieies 


PP. 433 Sd, _ 


never read there of the First-born 
of God, or of the Father; but First- 


,born of the creation, whether the 


original creation or the new.”— 
Newman, ‘* Causes of the Rise and 
Successes of Arianism” in Tracts 
Theol. and Eccles., p. 204 n., Lon- 
don 1895. 


CHRIST’S DIVINE SONSHIP 61 


end; the latter on Christ’s prerogative as the mystic 
head and reconciler of His Church, which consists of 
sinful men. From the first-mentioned viewpoint He 
is “ primogenitus omnis creaturae (mpwrdroxos dons 
__ktloews)”; from the point of view mentioned in’ the 
second place, He is “ primogenitus ex mortuis (mpwrdroKos 
éx tov vexpov).” *® In both respects Christ is no mere 
“creature, but very God. For like unto the Hypostatic 
Wisdom of the Old Testament,*? He possesses, as “ the 
firstborn of every creature,” an eternal, divine existence, 
and is equipped with creative power, whereby He has 
created and upholds the universe together with the realm 
of angels.** As the “firstborn from the dead,” on the 
other hand, He is “ the head of the body [of] the church,” 
absolute “ beginning,” the one “ who holds in all things 
the primacy,” the possessor of “the fullness of all per- 
fection,” and lastly “the reconciling mediator through 
the blood of His cross, of the things that are on the 
earth and the things that are in heaven,’— all of which 
can be true only on the supposition that Christ as the 
Firstborn is at the same time the true and genuine Son 
of God, and therefore Himself God.® According to St. 
Paul, therefore, Christ’s human primogeniture is based 
upon His divine primogeniture, which in turn coincides 
_with His unigeniture ( primogenitus = unigenitus ) °° 


4. THE CONSUBSTANTIALITY OF THE SON OF 
Gop witH Gop.—In the Scriptural texts we 


46 Col. I, 13 saqq. On the term 48 Col. I, 15-17. 
TpwrToToKos see Lebreton, op. cit., 49 Col. I, 18-20. 
pp. 302 sqq. 50 Cfr. Heb. I, 5 sqq.; Apoc. I, 5. 
47 Cir. Ecclus., XXIV, 5: “* Pri- Cir. J. Lebreton, Les Origines du 
mogenita ante omnem creaturam — Dogme de la Trinité, pp. 302 saqq., 


Wisdom, the firstborn before all 397 sqq. 
creatures.’’ 


62) LHESERINITYCIN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


have cited, the Divinity crit is communicated 
_ tothe Son by His divine } yévmors from the Father 
is not founded upon Ditheism, or the existence 
of two coequal gods, but on the numerical iden- 
tity of the Divine Nature. 


This SoneHaon: Ph flows so manifestly from the 
monotheistic character of both the Old and the New 
Testament, is expressly confirmed in the Epistle to the 
iit ppias Peres mot, Urea! draws a neat distinction 
between the “form of a servant” (forma servi, poppy 
Sovkov) and the “form of God” (forma Dei, popdy 
®cos). By the former he means the truly human, and 
by the latter the truly divine nature of Jesus” Christ, 
in the possession of which the Son of God is con- 
substantial or coequal with God (aequalis Deo, ica 
@c@). “Qui [scil. Christus] cum in forma Dei esset, 
non rapinam arbitratus est, esse se aequalem Deo, sed 
semetipsum exinanivit formam servi accipiens ... et 
habitu inventus ut homo— Christ Jesus, being in the 
form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with 
God: but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant 

. and in habit found as a man.”—“ Forma servi” in 
this context can mean nothing else than the human na- 
ture which the Son of God “assumed,” ®? and in virtue 
of which He was “found as a man.” “ Forma Dei,’ 
on the other hand, plainly signifies the Divine Nature, 
which Christ possessed before he “took the form of a 
servant’ and before He “ emptied Himself,” and which 
tc claim He did not need to think robbery, 7. ¢., unjust 
usurpation. It is immaterial whether we take “ rapina” 


31 Phil. IT, 5 sqq. was made flesh, and dwelt among 
52 John I, 14: ‘* And the Word us.” 


THE) DININTISY ORGCHRIS T 63 


in its active sense as “actus rapiendi,” or objectively as 


tes rapiics). 


Bye They Dron on Curse 


If Christ is truly the Son of God, no special 
argument is required to show that He is Divine. 
Yet as Holy Scripture, aside from those pas- 
sages which prove Christ’s Divine Sonship, also 
contains a number of texts which expressly as- 
sert His Divinity, it will be well to study these 
separately and to show how they confirm our 
thesis. We shall divide them into three distinct 
groups. | 

I. THE Divine ATTRIBUTES OF CHRIST.—A 
being that possesses divine attributes and per- 
forms divine acts, is truly divine. Christ, ac- 
cording to the New Testament Revelation, pos- 
sesses divine attributes and performs divine acts. 
Consequently He is true God. The major 
premise of this syllogism, being merely a descrip- 
tive definition of God, needs no proof. From 
out of the profusion of Scriptural texts which 
can be cited in support of the minor, we select the 
following. 


an die Philipper, Freiburg 1899.— 
The dogma of Christ’s Divine Son- 


53 Cfr. St. Chrysostom, Hom. in 
Philhp., 7, n. 2: “Hoc, inquam, 


esse aequalem Deo, non ex rapina 
habuit, sed a natura, quamobrem 
seipsum ~ exinanivit.”” For a full 
elucidation of Phil. II, 5 sqq., see 
K. J. Miiller, Brief des hl. Paulus 


ship is ably defended against the 
attacks. of the Modernists by M. 
Lepin, Christ. and the Gospel (Eng- 
lish tr.),; pp. 263 sqq., Philadelphia 
1910. 


™ 


64 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


a) The New Testament predicates self-existence, which 
is the fundamental attribute of the Godhead, in the same 
terms of Christ in which the Old Testament predicates 
it of Jehovah. Jesus said to St. John:** “ Noli timere, 
ego sum primus et novissimus (6 mporos Kai 6 écxaros) 
et vivus et fui mortuus — Fear not, I am the first and 
the last, and alive, and was dead.” **> As causa prima 
the airovows is per se and by intestine necessity the 
finis ultimus of all creation. Now Christ says of Him- 
self:°° “Ego sum a et w, primus et novissimus, prin- 
cipium et finis—I am Alpha and Omega, the first and 
the last, the beginning and the end.” Similarly St. 
Paul: ®* “Ta advra 8’ abtod Kal eis adrov éxricrar — All 
things were created by him and in him.” 

Because of His aseity God is incomprehensible to the 
created intellect. Christ shares in this incomprehensi- 
bility. On the other hand He possesses a truly compre- 
hensive knowledge of the Father. Cfr. Matth. XI, 27: 
“Nemo novit (émywooxe) Filium nisi Pater, .. . neque 
Patrem quis novit (émvywooxa) nisi Filius, et cui voluerit 
Filius revelare—No one knoweth the Son but the 
Father: neither doth any one know the Father but the 
Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal 
him.” Note that the verb érywooxev is stronger than 
simple ywooxev; it denotes that comprehensive knowl- 
edge which is proper to the infinite God.*® 

b) Chief among God’s transcendental attributes of 
being is His absolute truth. Now Christ is the abso- 
lute, living Truth, as He Himself testifies: “Ego sum 
via et veritas et vita (4 ddAnOea Kai 7 Con) —I am the 


54 Apoc. I, 17 saqq. —TI the Lord, I am the first and the 
55 Cfr. Apoc. II, 8. For compari- last.’ 

son also read Is. XLI, 4: ‘* Ego 56 Apoc. XXII, 13. 

myn) primus et novissimus ego sum 57 Col. I, 16. 


58 Cfr. 1 Cor. XIII, 12 


THE DIVINIDY OP- CHRIST 65 


way, and the truth, and the life.”*® This (truth-) 
life is communicated to Him in virtue of His eternal 
generation by the Father; hence it is a divine life, 
and as such self-existent in character. John V, 26: 
“Sicut enim Pater habet vitam in semetipso (év éavro), 
sic dedit [1. e., generando communicavit] et Filio habere 
vitam im semetipso (é éavré) — For as the Father hath 
life in himself, so he hath given to the Son also to have 
life in himself.” This process of communication, there- 
fore, results in a differentiation, not of nature or es- 
sence, but of persons only. Cfr. 1 John I, 2: “ An- 
nuntiamus vobis vitam aeternam (ryv lov TV aidnov), 
quae erat apud Patrem (mpos rov marépa) et apparuit 
nobis — We declare unto you the life eternal, which was 
with the Father, and hath appeared to us.” As the 
living truth, the Saviour must also be the author of 
life,*° especially in the supernatural order of erace Gir, 
John XI, 25: “Ego sum resurrectio et vita (4) fon) ; 
qui credit in me, etiam st mortuus fuerit, vivet —I am 
the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, 
although he be dead, shall live.” Again, “ Qui habet 
Filium, habet vitam (rhv fwhv) — He that hath the Son, 
hath life.” ¢ 

God’s attributes of veracity and fidelity are rooted in 
His absolute truth. In this absolute sense Christ, too, is 
veracity itself; for He “ testifieth” only “what he hath 
seen and heard ” of His father in Heaven. Cor. John 
III, 31 sq.: “Qui de coelo venit, super omnes est. Et 
quod vidit et audivit, hoc testatur —He that cometh 
from heaven, is above all. And what he hath seen and 
heard, that he testifieth.” John VIII, 26: “Qui me 

59 John XIV, 6. killed, whom God hath raised from 


60 Acts III, 15: ‘‘ But the author the dead.”’ 
of life (6 adpxnyos THs SwHs) you 611 John V, 12. 


66 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


misit, verax (dAnOhs) est; et ego, quae audivit ab eo, 
~ haec loquor in mundo — He that sent me is true: and 
the things I have heard of him, these same I speak in 
the world.’ . 

For this reason, too, He is absolute fidelity. Cfr. 
Matth. XXIV, 35: “ Heaven and earth shall pass away, 
but my words shall not pass away.” Apoc. XIX, If: 
“ Fidelis et verax — Faithful and true.” Apoc. III, 14: 
“ FHaec dicit Amen, testis fidelis et verax, qui est princt- 
pium creaturae Dei — These things saith the Amen, the 
faithful and true witness, who is the beginning of the 
creation of God.” 

Christ’s substantial sanctity coincides with His eth- 
ical goodness and is based on His Divine Sonship. 
Cfr. Luke I, 35: “Quod nascetur ex te Sanctum, 
vocabitur Filius Dei — The Holy which shall be born of 
thee shall be called the Son of God.” In virtue of 
the Hypostatic Union His divine sanctity overflows into 
the human race. Cfr. Heb. VII, 26: “ Talis enim dece- 
bat, ut nobis esset pontifex, sanctus, innocens, impollutus, 
segregatus a peccatoribus et excelsior coelis factus — For 
it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, 
holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and 
made higher than the heavens.” °° 

c) Among God’s categorical attributes of being 1s 
omnipotence, which in the natural order manifests itself 
in the creation and preservation of the universe, while 
in the supernatural sphere it works miracles by its own 
power. In both respects Christ has given irrefragable 
proofs of His Divinity. He is, in the first place, the 
creator and preserver of the universe. Col. LiaiGy, sque 

62 Cfr. Apoc. III, 7: “ Sanctus 63 This subject will be treated at 


et verus— The Holy one and the length in Christology. 
True one.” 


i 


THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST 67 


“In ipso (év aité) condita sunt universa in coelis et 
in terra, visibilia et invisibilia, sive throni sive domina- 
tiones sive principatus sive potestates: omnia per ipsum 
(80 abrod) et in ipso (eis abrév) creata sunt, et ipse est 
ante omnes (xpd mdvrwv) et omnia in ipso constant — 
For in him were all things created in heaven and on 
earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or domina- 
tions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created 
by him and in him, and he is before all, and by him 
all things consist.” This text contains three separate 
and distinct propositions: (1) All things were created 
im the Son; that is to say, according to the counsels of 
Christ and in virtue of His omnipotence. (2) All 
things were made through the Son (per ipsum), 1. é., 
the Son was not merely the instrument of creation, but 
its true creative cause.** (3) All things were made in 
reference to the Son (cis airdy), that is to say, He is the 
final end of the whole created universe. Consequently 
He is true God, and as such “ before all ” (ante omnes) 
2. e., eternal, and at the same time the preserver of the 
universe. Heb. I, 3: “Portans omnia verbo virtutis 
suae — Upholding all things by the word of his power.” 
Holy Scripture throughout both Testaments regards the 
working of signs and miracles in one’s own name and by 
one’s own power as a sure proof of omnipotence. The 
miracles of Christ proceed from His own omnipotence, 
not from any derived or communicated power ; — except 
in this sense that God the Father has communicated this 
power to Him as His Son by a truly divine yévvnos from 
everlasting. Cfr. John V, 19: “Non potest Filius a se 
facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit Patrem facientem; 
quaecumque enim ille fecerit, haec et Filius similiter factt 


64 Cfr. Heb. I, 2: “Per quem made the world.’? Cfr. also Heb. 
fecit -et saecula — By whom also he Diroy s 


68 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


— The Son cannot do any thing of himself, but what he 
seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doth, 
these the Son also doth in like manner.” In this sense 
Christ possesses the power of raising the dead. John V, 
21: “Sicut Pater suscitat mortuos et vivificat, sic et 
Filius, quos vult, vivificat — For as the Father raiseth up 
the dead and giveth life: so the Son also giveth life to 
whom he will.’ Therefore He is able to say: “Et 
ego resuscitabo eum (dvacrnow adrov eyo) im novissimo 
die — And I will raise him up in the last day.” ®* When 
the leper adored him, Christ did not object. Matth. 
VIII, 2 sqq.: “ Et ecce leprosus veniens adorabat eum 
(mpocexive. ado), dicens: Domine, st vis, potes me mun- 
dare. Et extendens Iesus manum, tetigit eum dicens: 
Volo, mundare — And behold a leper came and adored 
him, saying: Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me 
clean. And Jesus stretching forth his hand, touched 
him, saying: I will, be thou made clean.’ Christ’s om- 
nipotence is the source of the universal sovereignty to 
which He lays claim. As God alone is Lord of life 
and death, heaven and hell, so Christ holds “the 
keys of death and of hell.” Apoc. I, 18: “Et habeo 
claves mortis et inferni.”** He is the zavroxpdétwp * to 
whom all creatures, including the angels, are subject, 
and as such is “the Lord of lords, and King of kings.” 
Apoc. XVII, 14: “ Agnus vincet illos, quoniam dominus 
dominorum est et rex regum.”’ °° As we have but one 
God the Father, so we have but one Lord Jesus Christ. 
1 Cor. VIII, 6: “Nobis tamen unus est Deus Pater, 
ex quo omnia et nos in illum, et unus Dominus (eis KUptos ) 
Tesus Christus, per quem omnia et nos per ipsum (dv ob 7a 
65 John VI, 4o. 681 Pet. III, 22. 


66 Cfr. also Apoc. III, 7. 69 Cfr. also Apoc. XIX, 16. 
67 Apoc. I, 8. 


THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST 69 


mavta Kat ypeis 8.’ avrov) — Yet to us there is but one 
God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto 
him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, 
and we by him.” 

Two other divine attributes not shared by any crea- 
ture are absolute immutability, and eternity which 
flows therefrom. Both of these are ascribed by Holy 
‘Scripture 1 to Chiist. What the Psalmist says of the im- 
; mutability of Jehovah,” “Ipsi peribunt, tu autem per- 
~manes — ‘They shall perish, but thou remainest,” St. Paul 
applies without limitation to Jesus.7* | That Christ is 
eternal can be deduced from the Scriptural teaching that 
He existed before time. John the Baptist confessed: ™ 
“ He was before me (pérds pov jv),” and Christ Himself 
confirmed this assertion by His solemn declaration: 7? 
“Antequam Abraham fieret, ego sum (mplv *ABpadm 
yeveoa, éyw eiuc) — Before Abraham was made, I am.” 
St. Augustine commentates this text as follows: “Non 
dixit: antequam Abraham esset, ego eram, sed: antequam 
Abraham fieret, qui nisi per me non fieret, ego sum. 
Neque hoc dixit: antequam Abraham fierct, ego factus 
sum. In principio enim fecit Deus coelum et terram; 
nam in principio erat Verbum. Antequam Abraham 
fieret, ego sum. Agnoscite creatorem, discernite crea- 
turam — He said not, Before Abraham was, I was; but, 
Before Abraham was made (and he could not be made but 
by Me), Iam. Neither said he this: Before Abraham 
was made, I was made. For, In the beginning God 
created the heaven and the earth: namely, in the begin- 
ning was the Word. Before Abraham was made, I am. 
Acknowledge the Creator, discern the creature.” 74 (fr. 


| 10Ps. CI, 27 sqq. 73 John VIII, 58 


71 Heb, I, 10 saq. 74 Tractatus in TIoa., 43, n. 1% 
72 John I, 15. Browne’s translation, I, 586, 


76, THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


also the famous passage in Christ’s prayer for His dis- 
ciples:7° “Et nunc clarifica me tu, Pater, apud te- 
metipsum claritate, quam habui prius, quam mundus es- 
set, apud te (rH 8déy, 7) cixov mpd Tov TOV KOopoV cival, mapa 
ooi)— And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thy- 
self, with the glory which I had, before the world was, 
with thee.’ As Cardinal Toletus pertinently observes, 
this passage has reference to the divine glory which 
Christ enjoyed as God together with His Father from 
all eternity. Therefore His Ascension was merely a 
return to “ where he was before,” 7° or, more correctly, 
where “He always is.” Cfr. John III, 13: “Nemo 
ascendit in coelum, nisi qui descendit de coelo, Filius 
hominis, qui est in coelo— And no man hath ascended 
into heaven, but he that descendeth from heaven, the 
Son of man who is in heaven.” 7? Hence for Christ to 
be “in Heaven” means to be “in the bosom of the 
Father,” i. ¢., to be the true Son of God from all eters, 
nity. Eternity for Him is merely the past, present, and 
future combined in an unchanging life. Heb. XIII, 8: 
“ Tesus Christus heri et hodie, ipse et in saecula — Jesus 
Christ, yesterday, and to-day, and the same for ever, ” 

In His relation to space, and to the world of pure 
spirits, Christ is endowed with omnipresence, and partic- 
ularly with that power of indwelling in the souls of the 
just which is peculiar to God. St. Paul probably means 
to emphasize His omnipresence when he says: “ Qut 
descendit, ipse est et qui ascendit super omnes coelos, ut 
wmpleret omnia (iva mAypoon 74 aévra) — He that de- 
scendeth is the same also that ascended above all 
heavens, that he might fill all things;”— unless indeed 

75 John XVII, 5. 77 Cfr. also John XVI, 28; I, 18. 


76John VI, 63: “Ubi erat 78 Eph. IV, tro. 
prius.” 


DEL IWIN UE OR CHRIS? 71 


the phrase to “fill all things” is meant to indicate the 
fulfilment of the prophecies relating’ to Christ’s Ascen- 
sion. Cfr. John XIV, 23: “Pater meus diliget eum, et 
ad eum veniemus et mansionem apud eum (povyv map’ 
aito) factemus — My Father will love him, and we will 
come to him, and will make our abode with him.” No 
mere creature could, without committing blasphemy, thus 
put himself on a level with God, and promise to in- 
dwell with God in the souls of the just; and none but 
God Himself could solemnly promise: “ Et ecce ego 
vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem 
saeculi— And behold I am with you all days, even to 
the consummation of the world.”® Only a believer in 
the Divinity of Jesus can exclaim with St. Paul: “ Vivit 
vero m me Christus — But Christ liveth in me.” 8° 

d) Among the operative attributes of God the most im- 
portant is probably omniscience. As God alone can ade- 
_quately comprehend His own Essence, so likewise only 
a truly divine Son can adequately comprehend the divine 
Father. Cfr. John X, 15: “Sicut novit (ywécxer) 
me Pater, et ego agnosco (ywaicxw) Patrem— As the 
Father knoweth me, I know the Father.” And again: 
“Ego scio eum (ey oiSa adrév), quia ab ipso sum (zrap’ 
avtov eivi), et ipse me misit—I know him, because I 
am from him, and he hath sent me.” *! This argues 
an intimate knowledge such as no creature can pos- 
sess. John VI, 46: “Non quia Patrem vidit quisquam, 
nisi is qui est a Deo (ei py & dv rapa tod cod), hic vidit 
Patrem (oitos éépaxe tov marépa) — Not that any man 
hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath 
seen the Father.” This intuitive vision has its source in 

79 Matth. XXVIII, 20. Cfr. also 80 Gal. II, 20. 


John XIV, 16; XV, 5 sqq.; XVI, 13 81 John VII, 20. 
sqq. 


72.) THE PRUNE Y TN SHE ene WS LAM ENS 


Christ’s divine yévvyows. Cfr. John I, 18: “ Deum nemo 
vidit unquam; unigenttus Filius, qui est in sinu Patris, 
ipse enarravit — No man hath seen God at any time: 
the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the 
Father, he hath declared him.’ Christ’s divine self- 
comprehension necessarily implies an adequate knowl- 
edge of all things external to the Godhead. For if, as St. 
Paul assures us, “in him dwelleth all the fulness of the 
Godhead corporeally,” ®* it is evident that “in him are 
hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” ** It 
is by this standard, therefore, that His knowledge of all 
things, even the most hidden, must be gauged. Thus 
He was able to assure Nathanael: “ Before that Philip 
called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw 
thee.” 8 Whereupon the new Apostle, struck by Christ’s 
wonderful knowledge, exclaimed: “ Thou art the Son 
of God, thou art the King of Israel.” *° 

If cardiognosis is an exclusive prerogative of the 
Godhead,®* Christ is true God. For He applied to 
Himself the words of Jeremiah: ‘‘I am the Lord who 
search the heart,” 8’ when He said: “ All the churches 
shall know that I am he that searcheth the reins and 
hearts.” 88 More than once in fact did He demonstrate 
that He possessed this attribute of Divinity. Cfr. Luke 


IX, 47: “At Iesus videns cogitationes cordis illorum 
82 Col. II, 9: “In ipso inhabitat 86 As we have shown in the first 

emnis plenitudo divinitatis corporali- volume of this series, God: His. 

ter (éy a’r@ xatouei wav 1d  Knowability, Essence, and Atiri- 

TAHpwUa THS OedTHTOS TwuaTi- utes, pp. 359 Sd. 

K@s).” 87 Jer. XVII, 10: “Ego Dome- 
83 Col. II, 3: “Im quo [Christo] nus symy scrutans cor et probans 


sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et 
scientiae absconditi.” 

84John I, 48: ‘‘ Priusquam te 
Philippus vocaret, cum esses sub 
ficu, vidi te.” 

85 John I, 49: 
tu es rex Israel.” 


“ Tu es Filius Det, 


renes.” 

“88 Apoc. II, 23: “Et scient om- 
nes ecclesiae, quia ego sum scrutans 
renes et corda.” 


THE DIVINEDY: OF CHRIST 73 


(dy tov Sadoyiopov tis Kapdias abréoy)— But Jesus seeing 
the thoughts of their heart.” With vision wondrous 
clear He foresees free future events, as, e. g., His be- 
trayal at the hands of Judas, Peter’s denial, the flight 
of His disciples, His Passion, Resurrection, and As- 
cension, the destruction of Jerusalem, etc. His “ Woe 
to thee, Corozain, woe to thee, Bethsaida ” 8° shows that 
He also possesses the scientia futuribilium.®° 


2. Curist’s TiTLE To Divinrt Honors.—No 
mere creature can claim divine honors without 
incurring the awful crime of idolatry. But 
Christ claims and receives divine honors. There- 
fore, He is true God. This syllogism rests on 
the supposition—which it is the business of 
apologetics to prove—that Christ was neither an 
impostor nor a megalomaniac, but, on the con- 
trary, a morally altogether superior and phys- 
ically normal being. We also assume it as a 
datum furnished by fundamental theology,® that 
His Apostles and Disciples were neither fools 
nor knaves, but men who knew the facts of 
Christ’s career and who were sincere in wor- 
shipping Him as God. 

a) Christ laid claim to divine honors. 


John V, 22 sq.: “Pater... omne iudicium dedit 
Filo, ut omnes honorificent Filium, sicut honortficant 
Patrem (iva wdvres tisaor tov vidv, Kabos TYL@OL TOV Tatépa ) 


89 Matth. XI, 21 sqq. sence, and Attributes, pp. 361 sqq. 
90 On the “ scientia futuribilium,” 91 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, op. cit., pp. 
as a divine attribute, see Pohle- 7 sq. 
Preuss, God: His Knowability, Es- 


74 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


— The Father... hath given all judgment to the Son, 
that all men may honor the Son, as they honor the 
Father.” Here Jesus plainly exacts for Himself, as Son, 
the same worship which He demands for His Father. 
The context proves that the adverb xa@ws is meant to ex- 
press not merely similitude but equality ; for in the same 
chapter of St. John’s Gospel from which the passage is 
taken, Christ distinctly asserts and defends His coequality 
with the Father, and “the Jews sought the more to kill 
him, because he . . . said God was his Father, making 
himself equal to God.” ®? He never was known to refuse 
divine worship when offered to Him, but accepted it with- 
out protest.°* His Apostles, too, particularly St. Paul 
and St. John, insist that Christ is entitled to divine 
honors. Rom. XIV, 10 sq.: “Ommnes enim stabimus 
ante tribunal Christi; scriptum est enim: Vivo ego, dicit 
Dominus, quoniam mihi flectetur omne genu et omnis 
lingua confitebitur Deo— We shall all stand before the 
judgment seat of Christ. For it is written: As I live, 
saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every 
tongue shall confess to God.” ®* This can only mean 
that all men will one day appear before the judgment 
seat of Jesus Christ and be compelled to worship Him 
as God. The same thought is expressed yet more effec: 
tively in another Pauline text:°° “ Donavit alli nomen, 
quod est super omne nomen, ut in nomine Iesu omne 
genu flectatur coelestium, terrestrium et imfernorum, et 
omnis lingua confiteatur, quia Dominus Iesus Christus 
in gloria est Dei Patris —God hath given him a name 
which is above all names: that in the name of Jesus 
every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on 
92 John V, 18. 94’ Ctr) (Ts) SIGVG) 23 )sG3 


93 Cfr. Matth. XIV, 33; VIII, 2 95 Phil. II, 9 sqaq. 
at al, 


THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST 76 


earth, and under the earth; and that every tongue should 
confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of 
God ‘the Father.’ °° 

If Christ is true God, then the prayers directed to 
Him must be equally efficacious as those addressed 
to the Father. Holy Scripture plainly teaches that 
they are. John XIV, 13: “Quodcunque  petieritis 
Patrem nm nomine meo,. hoc faciam [not: faciet], ut 
glorificetur Pater in Filio— Whatsoever you shall ask 
the Father in my name, that will I do: that the Father 
may be glorified in the Son.” John XIV, 14: “Si 
quid petieritis me in nomine meo, hoc faciam—If you 
shall ask me any thing in my name, that will I do.” 
In the hour of death no man may, without grievous 
sin, commend his soul to any creature. Christ com- 
mends His into the hands of His Heavenly Father. 
Luke XXIII, 46: “ Father, into thy hands I commend 
my spirit.” And the dying protomartyr Stephen un- 
hesitatingly cries out: “Domine Iesu, suscipe spiritum 
meum — Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” ° 


b) The Godhead is the sole formal object of 
the three theological virtues. But Holy Scrip- 
ture represents Christ as a Supreme Being, to 
whom all men owe faith, hope, and charity. 
Consequently, He is true God. 


Jesus Himself requires men to believe in Him with the 
same faith which they have in God. In this connection it 
is well to remember that there is an important distinction 
between credere alicui and credere in aliquem. We may 

96 On the adoration of the “slain Lamb,” 7. e., Christ in Heaven, cfr. 


Apoc. V, 11-13. 
97 Acts VII, 58. 


6 


76 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


believe a creature, but we believe in God alone. Cfr. 
John XIV, 1: “Creditis in Deum, et in me credite 
' (morevere cis Tov Ocdv, Kal eis Eue miotevere)— You believe 
in God, believe also in me.” Faith in Christ is pro- 
ductive of eternal life. John VI, 47: “ Amen, amen, 
dico vobis: qui credit in me (eis éué) habet vitam aeter- 
nam — Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth 
in me, hath everlasting life.” For belief in Jesus 
Christ is nought else than faith in the true Son of God. 
1 John IV, 15: “Quisquis confessus fuerit, quoniam 
Tesus est Filius Dei (6 vids rot Ocov), Deus in eo manet 
et ipse in Deo — Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is 
the Son of God, God abideth in him, and he in God.” 
Christ is also the object of theological hope, as the 
story of the Atonement clearly shows. If St. Paul 
calls himself “an apostle of Jesus Christ, ... our 


hope,” ®§ this is neither an empty phrase nor a hyper- 


bole. For, as, St. Peter ‘tersely says: “ Non’ est 1m 
aliquo alio (év dAdw ovdevi) salus; nec enim aliud nomen 
est sub coelo datum hominibus, in quo oporteat nos sal- 
vos fieri— Neither is there salvation in any other; for 
there is no other name under heaven given to men, 
whereby we must be saved.” °° 

Christ is likewise the object of that theological charity 
(“amor super omnia”) to which God alone can lay 
claim. Matth. X, 37: “ He that loveth father or mother 
more than me, is not worthy of me.’ Whatever inter- 
feres with the love of Christ is to be treated as an obsta- 
cle in the way of salvation. Luke XIV, 26: “S1t quis 
venit ad me et non odit patrem suum et matrem et uxo- 
rem et filios et fratres et sorores, adhuc autem et am- 


981 Tim. I, 1: “ Paulus, apo- formation on this point we must 
stolus lesu Christi, ... spet no- refer the student to the dogmatic 
strae.” treatise on Grace. 


99 Acts IV, 12. For further in- 


q 
Oe a a ee 


THE DIVINTIY, OR CHRIST 77 


mam suam, non potest esse meus discipulus —If any 
man come to me and hate not his father, and mother, 
and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea 
and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” The 
Father rewards us with His love if we love Christ. 
Cfr. John XIV, 23: “Si quis diligit me, ... et Pater 
meus diliget eum, et ad eum veniemus et mansionem 
apud eum faciemus—If any one love me,... my 
father will love him, and we will come to him and 
make our abode with him.” 2° St, Paul’s anathema 
against all those who “love not our Lord Jesus 
Christ,” *°* would be wantonly criminal if Christ were 
not true God. And it is only on this same assumption 
that the love of Christ can be called “a life in Christ.” 
Phil. I, 21: “Mihi enim vivere Christus est, et mori 
lucrum— For to me, to live is Christ: and to die is 
gain.” 2 Cor. V, 14 sq.: “Caritas enim Christi urget 
mos,... Ut et qui vivunt, iam non sibi vivant, sed 
él, qui pro ipsis mortuus est et resurrexit— For the 
charity of Christ presseth us, . .. that they also who 
live, may not now live to themselves, but unto him 
who died for them and rose again.” St. Paul boldly 
identifies “caritas Christi” with “caritas Dei,’ and 
says, nothing should separate us from it. Rom. Aya OE 
35 sqq.: “ Quis ergo nos separabit a caritate Christi? 
Tribulatio, an angustia, an fames, an nuditas, an peri- 
culum, an persecutio, an gladius? ... Certus sum 
enim, quia neque mors neque vita neque angeli . 
neque creatura alia poterit nos separare a caritate Dei, 
quae est in Christo Iesu Domino nostro— Who then 
shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall 
100 Cfr. also John XIV, 21. Christum, -sit anathema — If any 


1011 Cor, XVI, 22: “Si quis man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, 
non amat Dominum nostrum Iesum let him be anathema.” 


78 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


tribulation? or distress? or famine? or nakedness? or 
. danger? or persecution? or the sword? ... For I am 
sure that neither death nor life nor angels . . . nor any 
other creature, shall be able to separate us from the 
love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Con- 
sequently Christ and God are one. 


c) Christ’s adorableness, and consequently 
His Divinity, can be demonstrated also from the 
fact that Baptism is conferred in His name con- 
jointly with that of the Father and the Holy 
Ghost. 


We shall not enter into the Scholastic controversy 
whether by a special privilege the Apostles baptized 
in the name of Christ only, instead of employing the 
Trinitarian formula which Jesus Himself gave to them, 
as recorded in the twenty-eighth chapter of St. Mat- 
thew’s Gospel. This and other similar questions do 
not concern us here. They belong to the dogmatic 
treatise on Baptism. The very fact that Baptism used 
to be called “Baptism in Christ’s name” is proof 
that the early Christians believed in the Divinity of 
our Lord. Nor does it make the slightest difference 
whether the Sacrament was originally administered “ ézi 
7® Gvopatt “Inoot’ Xpiotov els apeow dpapriov, 1° or “ ey ro 
évdpatt tod “Inood Xpiorod,’ *°* for both formulas clearly 
emphasize the authority and power of Christ to forgive 


sins; — or “es 7d dvoua Tod Kvpiov “Inco,” *° which par- 


ticularly accentuates the consecration and devotion of the. 


102 A brief account of this con- 103 Acts II, 38. 
troversy will be found in Fr. Fan- 104 Acts X, 48. 
ning’s article on ‘‘ Baptism” in the 105 Acts VIII, 16. 


Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. Il, p. 
263. 


ee 


PT a ee et 


THE) DIVINITY, OF CHRIST. 79 


baptized convert to Jesus as man’s final end. In matter 
of fact no man could without committing idolatry allow 
himself to be baptized “in the name” of any creature; 
for no one but God can forgive sins and exact abso- 
lute subjection and divine worship. Cfr. 1 Cor. I, 13: 
“Numquid Paulus crucifixus est pro vobis? Aut in 
nomine Pauli baptizati estis? — Was Paul crucified for 
you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” 


3. Hory ScripTuRE ExpressLy CALLS CHRIST 
“Gop.”—Having demonstrated the Divinity ot 
Christ, it will serve to confirm our argument to 
note that Holy Scripture in several places ex- 
pressly refers to Him as God. 

a) If the Tetragrammaton mm is God’s in- 
- communicable proper name, which~ expresses 
His Divine. Essence,’”® ‘then a Being’ that is 
identical with the Old Testament Yahweh must 
be true God. Now Jesus Christ is identical 
with the Old Testament Yahweh. Therefore 
He is true God. 


In his Epistle to the Hebrews, St. Paul says: 
“ Et cum iterum introducit primogenitum [sc. Christum] 
in orbem terrae, dicit: Et adorent eum omnes angels 
— And, when he again bringeth in the first begotten 
into the world, he saith: And let all the angels of 
God adore) him.” #97) ; This text not only proves that 
Christ is true God; it also proves that He is Yahweh. 
For, in the passage which St. Paul here quotes,’** the 

106 See Pohle-Preuss, God: His 107 Heb. I, 6. 


Knowability, Essence, and Aittri- 108 Ps. XCVI, 7. 
butes, pp. 135 sdqq. 


80 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Psalmist describes how Yahweh appeared on earth 
for the purpose of founding a kingdom; how He re- 
appears as the terrible Judge; how the heavens declare 
His justice and all the people behold His glory, and 
how those are confounded who adore graven things 
and glory in their idols. Then there follows the ex- 
hortation (verse 7): “ Adore him (i. e., mm), all you 
angels.” Consequently Christ is the Jehovah of whom 
David speaks in this Psalm. 

We read in the Messianic Psalm XLIV, which is 
ascribed to the sons of Core: “ Sedes tua, Deus ( D728 ) 


in saeculum saeculi— Thy throne, O God, is for ever 
and ever.” 7° The Rationalist exegetes, who take the 
word Deis in this text for a nominative instead of a 
vocative, disregard both the dignity of God and Scrip- 
tural usage. If their interpretation were correct, the 
meaning of the text would be: Thy seat, or throne 
(1. e., according to the Rationalist conception, the throne 
of an earthly king), is God Himself for ever and ever. 
Though Holy Scripture sometimes refers to creatures 
(e. g., heaven and hell, angels and men) as the seat or 
throne of God, it nowhere designates God as the seat 
or throne of man, e. g., of an earthly prince. This 
interpretation is positively untenable in the light of 
Heb. I, 8: “Ad Filium [scil. Christum] autem dicit: 
Thronus tuus, Deus, im saeculum saeculi (6 Opdvos cov, 6 
®cds, eis TOv ai@va Tov aidvos), where the text Ps. XLIV, 
7 1s used to show Christ’s superiority over the angels. 
That St. Paul intends 6 @eés for a vocative is plain 
from New Testament Greek usage, as the student may 
see from a comparison of such texts as Matth. XI, 26; 

109 Ps. XLIV, 7. On this pas- S. J., Christ in Type and Prophecy, 


sage, and the whole Psalm of which Vol. II, pp. 36 saq., New York 
it forms a part, cfr. A. J. Maas, 1895. 


a ee ee 


DHE. DIVINI RY: OF CHRIST 81 


Mark, 4t's Luke VT i54ssfohn xix ssp. T, 
1; Col. III, 18; Heb. X, 7; Apoc. VI, 10. Consequently 
Ps SELV, 7, can only mean?) /(\/Thy, throne, (©) ,\God 
DAK, stands for ever.” Since the sons of Core never 


employ the term “ Elohim” except when they wish to 
designate the true God, it follows that Christ bears the 
Divine Name D°NN, i. ¢., beds = God. 

The hardness of heart which the Jews manifested in 
spite of the many wonderful miracles wrought by our 
Saviour, St. John attributes to the prophecy of Isaias *?° 
and adds: “Haec dixit Isaias, quando vidit gloriam 
eius et locutus est de eo— These things said Isaias, 
when he saw his glory and spoke of him [Christ].” ** 
Turning to the sixth chapter of Isaias, we read: “Vidi 
Dominum (‘Y18) sedentem super solium excelsum. .. . 
Seraphim clamabant alter ad alterum et dicebant: Sanc- 
tus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus exercituum (Di82¥ TiN), 
plena est omnis terra gloria eius—I1 saw the Lord sit- 
ting upon a throne high and elevated. . . . The seraphims 

. cried to one another: Holy, holy, holy, the Lord 
God of hosts, all the earth is, full) of. ‘his! slory/ 4" 
Hence, according to St. John, Christ is “ God” (Domi- 
mus, ‘278) and “Lord of hosts” (Dominus exercituum, 
nixay nin’). 

It should also be noted that St. Mark, in the beginning 
of his Gospel,t? refers the well-known exhortation of 
Isaias:114 “ Parate viam Domini — Prepare ye the way 
of the Lord,” to John the Baptist, as the precursor of 
the “Lord,” thereby acknowledging the latter to be 
> Jehovah.” In? Mark 1,\.2,.:.we shave 'ai citation) from 
Malachias (attributed to Isaias), in. which Jehovah 

110 Is. VI, 9 sqq. 113 Mark I, 3. 


111 John XII, 41. ; 114Is. XL, 3. 
112Is, VI, 1 sqq. 


82:0 THE TRINITY IN THE NEWoTESTAMENT 


Himself is quoted as prophesying: “Ecce ego mitto an- 
-gelum meum et praeparabit viam ante faciem meam — 
Behold I send my angel, and he shall prepare the way 
before my face.” 1!® Now this angel is none other than 


ce 


John the Baptist, who, as ‘a precursor, is to “ prepare 
the way before the face of Jehovah,” 7. e., Christ.. As 
Christ 7® also applies this text to the Baptist, resp. to 
Himself, we have a double warrant for the assertion 
that the Jehovah of Malachias is identical with Jesus. 


b) Christ is expressly called “God” in at least 
four New Testament texts. A fifth occurs in 
the prologue of St. John’s Gospel, but we defer 
the discussion of it to the next Section, where 
we shall treat explicitly of the Logos. 

a) The first of the four passages just alluded. 
to is John XX, 28. The Evangelist describes 
how Christ reproached the incredulous Thomas 
for his unbelief, whereupon “Thomas answered 
and said to Him: My Lord and my God—(é 
Kipios pov xa 6 cds pov) Dominus meus et Deus 
meus.’ Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius 
represented this reply as a mere exclamation of 
surprise; but the text plainly says: “dixit et 
(<imev ait@)—[Thomas] said to him.’ These 
words also exclude the Rationalist theory which 
asserts that the Apostle, in exclaiming “My 
Lord and my God!” did not address Jesus, who 


115 Mal. III, 1. On this proph- 116 Luke VII, 27 and Matth. XI, 
ecy cfr. Maas, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. I0. 
435 sdq. 


EDV ENS YOUR GEL IRE S571) 83 


stood before him, but Almighty God in Heaven. 


It is obvious from, the context that Thomas desired 
to make a profession of faith not simply in the Resur- 
rection of Christ, but also in His Divinity, for which 
the Resurrection furnishes such a triumphant argument. 
It is in this sense that Christ replies to him: “ Quia, 
vidistt me, Thoma, credidisti; beati, qui non viderunt 
et crediderunt — Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, 
thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, 
and have believed.” 147 


8) Christ is again expressly called God in 
Tit. Il, 13: “Exspectantes beatam spem et ad- 
ventum gloriae magm Det et Salvatoris nostri 
lTesu. Christi (Tod peyahov cod Kai owrnpos jpov “Inood 
Xpisrov ) — Looking for the blessed hope and com- 
ing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour 
Jesus Christ.” 


St. Paul does not mean to distinguish two sepa- 
rate persons — the “ great God,” or Father, and ‘ Our 
Saviour Jesus Christ.” He is speaking solely of Christ, 
who is both “the great God” and “our Saviour; ” 
else he would repeat the definite article and express 
himself like this: Tov peyddov cod Kal rod owripos fuav 
*Inood Xpicrod. Whenever St. Paul wishes to distin- 
guish between the different Persons of the Most Holy 
Trinity, he always repeats the article. On the other hand, 
he never repeats the article when heaping several predi- 
cates on one and the same Person. Cfr. 2 Cor. I, 3: 
“EvAoyyntos 6 ds Kal zaryp tov Kupiov— Blessed be the 
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”148 The 


117 John XX, zo. 118 Cfr. also Eph, I, 3. 


84 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Ethiopian translation has dropped the xai without in the 
least changing the signification of the text. But there is 
also a strong objective reason for applying the phrase 
“the great God” to Jesus Christ. For in speaking of 
the “coming of the glory of the great God,’ the Apos- 
tle can only mean Christ, because Holy Scripture tells us 
nothing of an epiphany of the Father, and we know that 
the second coming (parousia) of Christ will coincide 
with the Last Judgment. 


vy) An equally cogent argument can be con- 
strued from 1 John V, 20: “Scimus quoniam 
Filius Det vemt et dedit nobis sensum, ut co- 
gnoscamus verum Deum et simus in vero Filio 
elus: hic est verus Deus et vita aeterna — And 
we know that the Son of God is come: and he 
hath given us understanding that we may know 
the true God, and may be in his true Son. This 
is the true God and life eternal.” Here the 
Divinity of Christ, which is logically deducible 
from the fact that He is a true Son of the true 
God, is expressly reaffirmed in the concluding 
phrase: This is the true God—éAyOuwes Geis. 


It is contrary to the rules of logic and grammar alike 
to refer the phrase “This is the true God and life 
eternal,” not to the immediately preceding word “ Filio,” 
but to the more remote “ verum Deum” (1. e., Patrem). 
In that case ile — éxeivos should be the pronoun used, 
not hic—oiros. To refer the demonstrative pronoun 
hic — otros to the determinative pronoun etus would 
offend against the idiom of the Latin language. If 


THE DIVINITY’ OF CHRIST 85 


Erasmus were right in his assumption that the phrase, 
“ The true God and life eternal’? designates the Father, 
not the Son, St. John would have made himself 
guilty of an insufferable tautology, viz.: “Verus Deus 
est verus Deus.” Moreover, the aim of St. John’s 
First Epistle, which was written as a prologue to his 
Gospel, is not to demonstrate the Godhead of the 
Father, which no one denied, but the Divinity of the 
Son, who had appeared corporeally in Christ. It is 
furthermore to be noted that the “true God” whom 
St. John has in mind, is also called “eternal life” 
(otrés éorw 6 dAnOuds Beds Kal Loy aisvos). Now St. 
John never means the Father but invariably the Son 
when he uses the phrase “ eternal life.” Consequently 
Christ is as certainly “verus Deus’ as is His Father. 
Cir. 1 John I, 2: “ Annuntiamus vobis vitam aeter- 
nam, quae erat apud Patrem et apparuit nobis — 
We declare unto you the life eternal, which was with 
the Father, and hath appeared to us.”2® 1 John V, 
11: “Vitam aeternam dedit nobis Deus, et haec vita 
im Filio ews est. Qui habet Filium, habet vitam; qui 
non habet Filium, vitam non habet — God hath given 
to us eternal life. And this life is in his Son. He that 
hath the Son, hath life. He that hath not the Son, hath 
not life.’’ The last vestige of possible doubt is removed 
by the Greek text, which reads thus: “Kal Zope & 
T® dAnbwe & 7H Vid adrov "Incod XpictH* odds eotw 6 
adnPw0os Ocds kai uy aidvos.” The demonstrative pronoun 
clearly points to Jesus Christ. 


8) The “crux Rationalistarum” is the famous 
doxology, Rom. IX, 5: “Ex quibus [scil. Isra- 


119 Cfr. also John I, 4; XI, 25; XIV, 6. 


86 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


elitis| est Christus secundum carnem, qui est 
- super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula (Kat € 
ov 6 Xpioros TO Kata odpka 6 Ov ext mavTwv Weds evAoyyTOs 
cis tos aidvas),”” Whoever reads this sentence 
without prepossession will unhesitatingly refer 
the predicate Deus super omnia (ét mdvtwv cds) 
to Christ. 


The Greek manuscript codices present the New Tes- 
tament text without punctuation marks, and it would seem 
to be the business of exegesis rather than of textual 
criticism to determine whether there should be a comma 
or a period after the word odpxa. If a comma, then 
the whole doxology plainly refers to Christ; if a period, 
it would be most natural to refer it to the Father or to 


the Deity in general. Similarly, in the Latin text of the 


Vulgate, the Rationalists place a period after “ carnem” 
and reconstruct the passage thus: “. .. ex quibus est 
Christus secundum carnem. Qut est super omnia Deus 
[= Pater], benedictus [sit] in. saecula,’*° But this 
punctuation is arbitrary. There is no intrinsic reason 
whatever for inserting such an abrupt hymn of praise 
in honor of the Father into a context which treats solely 
of the Son. Conversely, the Apostle had excellent rea- 
sons for connecting the doxology with the name of 
Christ, whose descent according to the flesh from the 
Jews he had accentuated immediately before. This in- 
terpretation of the passage is so natural and plausi- 
ble that the early writers were unanimous in referring 
the doxology to the Son and not to the Father. To the 
fifteen witnesses whom Petavius 12+ was able to mar- 


120 Thus Erasmus, Westen, Griesbach, and others. 
121 De Trinitate, II, 7. 


4 een 


a ee en ee et 2 ee ee ee eR Se ne ee ene ee 


THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST 87 


shal in confirmation of this statement, Cardinal Fran- 
zelin*?? added thirty others, while Hurter 228 enriched 
the list with fourteen more. This practically unanimous 
consent of the Fathers loses none of its force by 
the circumstance that some of them (in a very cor- 
Tect sense) assert that the epithet 6 éxt mdvrwv @eds be- 
longs solely to the Father, because the Father alone, 
--as—the- First-Person... of the—Blessed. Trinity, is un- 
originate (dvapxos) and at the same time the principle 
of the Son (apy) ris épyjs). Thus Athanasius,!4 
Basil,”® and Gregory of Nyssa.t2° However, since these 
Fathers did not have in mind the Epistle to the Romans, 
but that to the Ephesians, in which St. Paul writes } 
“Unus Deus et Pater omnium qui. est super omnes 
(6 ént mdvtwv)— One God and Father of all, who is 
above all,” 227 we can reasonably assume that they do 
not mean to contradict the other Fathers. This assump- 
tion is rendered still more probable by the fact that 
these same apparently dissentient Fathers elsewhere ex- 
pressly interpret the doxology as referring to Christ.128 
For the rest, such unsuspected witnesses as Rosen- 
miller and the editor of the new edition of H. A. W. 
Meyer’s voluminous commentary on the various books 
of Sacred Scripture, B. Weiss, admit that the Ra- 
tionalist interpretation involves a violation of the rules 
of Greek grammar. In fact it would be just as unnatural 
and ungrammatical to write 6 dv éx) adyrey Ocds, instead of 
6 @cds 6 dy éri révrwv, as it would be natural and gram- 


122 De Verbo Incarnato, thes. 9. 127 Eph. IV, 6. Céfr. Newman, 

123 Opuscula Patrum, XVI, p. Athanasius, II, 348 sq., 9th ed., 
240, 2nd ed., Oeniponte 189s. London 1903. 

124 Ad Serap., Ep. 1, n. 28, 128 Athanas., Ep. ad Epict., in. t0: 

125 Ep., 38, n. 4. Basil, Contr. Eunom., TVG ndings 


126 Contr, Apoll., n. 77. Greg. Nyss., Contr. Eunom., 1. X. 


88 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


matical to resume by 6 év the immediately preceding 
- subject, namely, 6 Xpuoros. 


Be it noted in conclusion that Christ’s standing 
epithet in the pages of the New Testament is not 
“Godt. ( Deis,’ @s), “but rather YLord™\(Doe- 
minus, Képws), as can easily be gathered from a 
perusal of the Apostolic Epistles. But inasmuch 
as “Dominus” corresponds exactly to the Hebrew 
mm and ‘28, the texts in which Jesus is called 
“Lord” prove His Divinity quite as cogently as 
those in which He is called “God.” 


Cl) Dre Logos 


Whereas the Synoptics portray Christ mainly on His 
human side, St. Paul emphasizes the Godman, and St. 
John, who was the Saviour’s favorite disciple, raising 
his eagle eye to the very Heavens, shows us Christ 
subsisting before all time in His Divine Nature as the 
“Word of God” (Verbum, 6 Adyos). This term**? 
is of the utmost importance for the proper understand- 
ing of the mystery of the Blessed Trinity. The use of 
the term “Logos” is peculiar to St. John.% The at- 
tempt to trace the Johannine Logos to the teaching of the 
Jewish philosopher Philo has proved abortive. Aside 


129 “ Logos, verbum, being a term as they had _— sects.”— Newman, 


already used in the schools of Athanasius, II, 337, 445 saq., goth 
heathen philosophy, was open to 
various misunderstandings on its ap- 
pearance in the theology of revealed 
teaching. In the Church it was both 
synonymous with and corrective of 
the term ‘Son’; but heretics had 
almost as many senses of the term 


ed., London 1903. Cfr. J. Lebre- 
ton, Les Origines du Dogme de la 
Trinité, Book 1, Paris 1910; E. 
Krebs, Der Logos als Hetland im 
ersten Jahrhundert, Freiburg 1910. 

130 Cfr. John I, 1 sqq.; 1 John I, 
1; V, 7; Apoc. XIX, 13. 


LS 


THE LOGOS 89 


from the name there is absolutely no similarity between 
the two conceptions; rather an irreconcilable opposition. 
It is far more reasonable to regard the teaching of St. 
John on the Logos as an inspired development of the 
doctrine of “ Uncreated Wisdom ” which is set forth in 
the Sapiential Books of the Old Testament. May we 
not also assume that St. John was directly enlightened by 
Him on whose bosom he was privileged to lean? 13 

The most important portion of the Johannean Gospel, 
as bearing on the dogma of the Blessed Trinity, is the 
prologue, which distinctly asserts the personality, the hy- 
postatic difference, and the Divinity of the Logos, who 
is Christ, the Son of God made flesh, 


I. THE Locos A ReaL Person.—The Fourth 
Gospel begins thus: “In the beginning was the 
Word, and the Word was with God (€v apxn qv 
@ Adyos kai 6 Adyos Hv pos TOV “Oey ) Tnasmuch as 
St. John distinguishes very clearly between the 
“Word” and “God,” the “Word with God” 
(apud Deum) cannot be an absolute divine at- 
tribute, e. g., personified wisdom or omnipotence; 
for wisdom and omnipotence are not “with God” 
but “in God.” This is clearly apparent from 
the whole context of the prologue, especially I, 
14: “And the Word was made flesh.” It 
would be impossible for the Divine ‘Nature, or 
for any one of its attributes, to “become flesh,” 
because the Divine Nature, as such, is incapable 
of entering into union with a finite substance, and 


131 John XIII, 23. 


go. THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


hence cannot form an undivided synthesis with 
human nature. Consequently the Logos is truly 
a person and not a mere personification. 

2. THE Locos As SECOND PERSON OF THE 
BLESssED TRINITY, DisTINCT FROM THE FATHER. 
—That the Logos must be conceived as the 
Second Person of the Divine Trinity, appears 
from the opposition between és and apis rv Ocdv. 
The one is “God,” the other is “with God’ as 
His Logos, and as such is likewise God.**? But 
the Evangelist continues: “He came unto his 
own (és 74 ida), and his own (0% tdi, 7, €., the 
children of Israel) received him not.” Whence 
it again appears, first, that the Logos is a real 
Person, and, secondly, that He cannot be the 
Father, because the Father never “came into this 
world.” +8 Consequently, the Logos must be a 


different Person from the Father. ‘This conclu-_ 


sion is made certain by verses 14 and 18, in 
which the Logos is identified with the Son of 
God. John I, 14: “Et Verbum (6 Acyes) caro 
factum est et habitavit in nobis; et vidimus 
gloriam eius [scil. Verbi], gloriam quasi unigenite 
a Patre (os povoyevous Tapa TaTpos ) ~~ Andethe Word 
was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we 
saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only 
begotten of the Father.” John I, 18: “Uni- 
genitus Filius (6 povoyeys vids), qui est m sinu 


132 John I, 1. 133 John I, 9. 


: ‘ 
ee nt lat 


THE LOGOS gl 


Patris, ipse enarravit — The only begotten Son 
who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath de- 
clared him.”’ If the Logos is identically the same 
Person as the “Son in the bosom of the Father,” 
there is between the Logos and the Father 
the same relative opposition which exists be- 
tween the Son and the Father, and consequently 
the Logos cannot be identical with the Father. ’ 
Fle must be an independent Hypostasis. r 

3. THE Locos as A Divine Person, or Gon. 
—The fifth of the Scriptural texts !** in which 
the Logos is expressly called “God,” is John 
I, 1: “In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum 
erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum — In the 
beginning was the Word, and the Word was 
with God, and the Word was God.” In the last 
clause of this sentence “Verbum” is the subject 
and “Deus” the predicate, as a glance at the 
Greek text: Kal cds jv 6 Adyos, tells. Therefore 
the meaning of the clause is: “The Logos was 
God.” But why did St. John thus transpose 
subject and predicate? His reason for doing: so 
appears from the context: ‘O Adyos jv mpds tov 
@cdv, kal @eds fv 6 Aéyos. By bringing Tov @edv and 
®cés into juxtaposition, the Evangelist desired to 
emphasize the consubstantiality of the Logos 
with God the Father, “with”? whom He was 
“from the beginning.” Positively to exclude the 


184 Cfr, supra, p. 82. 


7 


92 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


thought that the two might be identical in Per- 
son, St. John insists: **° Otros (7, @., 6 Adyos) tv 
 & dpxf mpos tov ®edv; that is to say, the Logos is 
indeed “God”; but He is likewise “with God.” 

Even if the Logos were not expressly called 
“God,” His Divinity could be inferred from the di- 
vine attributes ascribed to Him by the Evangelist. 


a) The Logos is the Creator of all things without 
exception. John I, 3: “Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, 
et sine tpso factum est mihil, quod factum est — All 
things were made by him: and without him was made 
nothing that was made.” John I, 10: “Jn mundo erat, 
et mundus (6 xécpos) per ipsum factus est —He was 
in the world, and the world was made by him.” He 
who created the world must be God. “ Peccatum 
quidem non per ipsum factum est,’ beautifully observes 
St. Augustine, “. . . et idolum non per Verbum factum 
est, sed... omnis omnino creatura ab angelo usque 
ad vermiculum. Quid praeclarius angelo in creaturis? 
Quid extremius vermiculo in creaturis? Per quem fac- 
tus est angelus, per ipsum factus est vermiculus — Sin 
indeed was not made by the Word .. . an idol too was 
not made bythe Word, but ... every created thing 
whatever, from an angel to a worm. What created 
being more excellent than an angel? What lower than 
a worm? Yet He who made the angel, the very same 
made the worm also.” *°* As Creator of the world the 
Logos is an uncreated Substance, ens a se. As if to 
refute the later Arian notion that the Logos who created 
the world was Himself a mere creature, St. John stresses 


135 John I, 2. 
136 Tract. in Ioannem, I, n. 13. 


THE LOGOS | 93 


the fact that “all things were made by him” by add- 
ing: “ And without him was made nothing that was 
made.” 187 If absolutely nothing was created without the 
Logos, the Logos Himself must either be increate, or His 
own creator, which would involve a contradiction. “ Quo- 
modo potest fieri,’ says St. Augustine, “ut Verbum Det 
factum sit, quando Deus per Verbum fecit omnia? Si et 
Verbum Dei ipsum factum est, per quod aliud Verbum 
factum est? ... Non enim per se ipsum fiert potuit, 
per quod facta sunt omnia. Crede ergo Evangelistae. 
Poterat enim dicere: In principio fecitt Deus Verbum, 
quomodo dixit Moyses: In principio fecit Deus coelum 
et terram— How could the Word of God be made, 
when by the Word God made all things? If the Word 
of God was itself also made, by what other Word was 
it made? ... For that by which all things are made, 
could not be made by itself. Believe then the Evan- 
gelist. For he might have said: In the beginning God 
made the Word; just as Moses said: In the beginning 
God made the heavens and the earth.” *%8 

yo The’ Logosi\is eternal. Cir. John Ty. ny sqe:\c oan 
the beginning (év dpy7) was the Word. ... The same 
was in the beginning (é épyy) with God.” A pre- 
existence which antedates time and creation is equal to 
absolute eternity. To say that the Logos began to be 
“with God” at some certain time, would be tantamount 
to asserting that the Father began out of His own 
substance to beget “the only begotten Son in His 
bosom.” 32° Consequently the Son must be coeternal 
with the Father. This is further confirmed by a con- 

137 John I, 3: Tldvra 60’ avdrov Card. eae Athanasius, II, 275 
éyévero, Kal xwpis atitov éeyeveTo Sad. 


ovoe ev (nihil = nothing whatever), 138 Tract. in Ioannem, I, n. 11. 
8 yéyovey, On this passage, cfr. 139 John I, 18. 


94 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


sideration of that attribute of the Divine Logos which 
may .be designated as His divine immanencé>~ By 
“Word of God” (Verbum, Aédyos) we may under- 
stand either the external word of God (verbum oris s. 
externum), 1. €., Divine ‘Revelation; or His internal, 
immanent word “(verbum mentis s. internum).— “The 
“former, “which™ “is something impersonal, accidental, 
created, temporal, extra-divine, is not mentioned by St. 
John in the prologue of his Gospel. The Word of 
which he speaks is manifestly the internal Word, 
which, being an intrinsic product of generation, im- 
manent in the intellect of the begetting Father, forms 
part of the Divine Essence. Consequently the Logos 
is coeternal with the Essence of the Godhead. 

c) Lastly, the Logos is the author of the Super- 
natural, and as such must be God. In Himself “the 
true light;?**° and, the life,’ 4 He isin. His.external 
manifestation “the light [that] shineth in the dark- 
ness,’ *4? and the principle of our adopted sonship.1# 
John I, 12: “ Quotquot autem receperunt eum, dedit ets 
potestatem filios Dei fiert (€wxev airois éEovotay téxva @eov 
yevésOar), his qui credunt in nomine eius (eis 76 dvopa 
avrov)—- But as many as received him, he gave them 
power to be made the sons of God, to them that be- 
lieve in his name.” Belief in the Logos is a necessary 
condition of salvation and eternal beatitude. Con- 
sequently the Logos is God. From the fulness of His 
grace we must all draw; it is from Him we receive 
grace and truth. Cfr. John I, 16 sq.: “Et de plem- 
tudine eius nos omnes accepimus, et gratiam pro gratia; 
quia lex per Moysen data est, gratia et veritas (4 xdpus 

140 John I, 4, 7, 9. 143 Cfr. the article ‘* Adoption, 


141 John I, 4. Supernatural,’ in the Catholic En- 
142 John I, 5, 9. cyclopedia, Vol. I, pp. 148 saa. 


2 ee Ce 


Thr LOGOS: 95 


kat 4 éAnOaa) per Iesum Christum facta est — And of 
his fulness we have all received, and grace for grace. 
For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came 
by Jesus Christ.” The Logos is the author both of 
nature and of the Supernatural, and therefore very God. 

The Logos appeared corporeally on earth in Jesus 
Christ, for it is to Him and to Him alone that we 
can apply such Scriptural passages as: “‘ He came unto 
Dieviown: .44*" 7) tHe was) in) the pworld) 29 Cl onmy sion 
gave testimony of [Him],” 14° and, lastly,*47 “ The Word 
was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” *48 This “ Word 
made flesh,” which is for the first time called “ Jesus 
Christ” in John I, 17, is “the only begotten Son of 
God.” 149 Hence Christ is both the Logos and the Son of 
God. With John I, 15, therefore, begins the story of the 
hiteof-Jesus Christ.*° 


READINGS: —-On the theology of the Son: J. E. Stadler, 
Uber die Identitit der Idee der Weisheit mit der des Wortes, 
Minster 1832; E. Bougaud, The Divinity of Christ (translated by 
Currie) New York 1906; *L. Atzberger, Die Logoslehre des h. 
Athanasius, Miinchen 1880; M. Beyr, Trinitatis in Unitate Det 
Salus Mundi per lesum Christum Redempti, Graz 1875; K. Muller, 
Gottliches Wissen und gottliche Macht des johanneischen Christus, 
Freiburg 1882; *P. Keppler, Die Komposition des Johannesevan- 
geliums, Freiburg 1884; G. A. Miller, Christus bei Josephus 
Flavius, 2nd ed., Innsbruck 1896; Simar, Theologie des h. Paulus, 
and ed., Freiburg 1883; *Franzelin, De Verbo Incarnato, thes. 2-0, 
ed. 4, Romae 1893; G. B. Tepe, Instit. Theolog., Vol. II, pp. 234 
sqq., Parisiis 1895; J. B. Bartmann, Das Himmelreich und sein 
Kénig nach den Synoptikern, Paderborn 1904; H. Schell, Jahwe 


144 John I, 11. hl. Johannes, Freiburg 1899; Belser, 
145 John I, ro. “ Der . Prolog des Johannesevange- 
146 John I, 6 sq. liums’”’ in the Theologische Quar- 
147 John I, 6 sqq. talschrift of . Tubingen, 1903, pp. 
148 John I, 14. 483 sqq.; J. Lebreton, Les Origines 
149 John I, 14, 18. du Dogme de la Trinité, pp. 382 


150 Cfr. K. Weiss, Der Prolog des sqq., Paris 1910. 


96 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


und Christus, Paderborn 190s. An older work of special value 
on this subject is Prud. Maranus, De Divinitate Domini Nostri 
’ Tesu Christi Manifesta in Scripturis et Traditione, Parisiis 1764. 
Cfr. also St. Thomas, Contr. Gent., IV, 7 (Rickaby, Of God and 
His Creatures, pp. 344 sqq., Towa 1905) ; Bellarmine, Controv. 
de Christo, 1. 1; J. Perrone, De D. N. I. Chr. Divinitate adv. 
huius Aetatis Taspedulee: Rationalistas et Mysticos, 3 Vols., 
Taurini 1870; H. P. Liddon, The Divinity of Our Lord and 
Saviour Jesus Christ, London 1867; H. J. Coleridge, S. J., The 
Preparation of the Incarnation, 2nd ed., London 1894; M. Lepin, 
Christ and the Gospel, or Jesus the Messiah and Son of God, 
Philadelphia 1910; A. J. Maas, S. J., Christ in Type and Proph- 
ecy, 2 vols, New York 1893-5.—C. C. Martindale, S. Ju The 
‘Word’ of God: Pagan and Jewish Background,” in the Month, 
Nias 70 Sadia! 


ARTICLE 3 


OF GOD THE HOLY GHOST 


The term “ Holy Ghost,” “ Spirit of God,” does 


__ not imply opposition so clear Be as * Father” and Son.” 


In demonstrating this dogma, therefore, we shall have 
to emphasize the personality of the Holy Ghost and 
the fact that He is an independent Hypostasis, distinct 
from both the Father and the Son. His Divinity can be 
proved with comparative ease. Accordingly, this article 
will fall into three divisions. In the first division we 
shall demonstrate that the Holy Ghost is a real Person; 
in the second, that He is a Person distinct from the 
Father and the Son; and i in the third, that He is a truly 
~ Divine Person, or Coa Himself. Once these three points 
are established from Holy Scripture, no further proof 
will be needed to show the existence of a Third Person in 
the Godhead. 


_— 


PER HOLY GOS 1 of 


A. The Personality of the Holy Ghost 


1. THE WorpD GHosT (SPIRIT) IN ITS IMPER- 
SONAL SENSE.—The Bible not infrequently uses 
the terms ‘“‘God the Father” and “sons of God” 
in a figurative sense. Similarly it also employs 
the word “spirit of God” in a way that does not 
always suggest the idea of a real personality. 


When we read, for instance, that “the spirit of God 
moved over the waters,’ 1*' we understand that the 
sacred writer personifies the breath of divine omnipo- 
tence. At least there is no cogent reason for thinking - 
that Moses here meant the Person of the Holy Ghost. 
In those texts, too, which tell of supernatural effects 
wrought by grace, or of the workings of the spirit, it 
is not always obvious that Holy Scripture means to 
describe something more than an external divine effect 
which might be figuratively termed “holy spirit.” In 
the Fiftieth Psalm the words “ Spirttum rectum imnova 
in visceribus meis,’? and “ Spiritu principali confirma 
me,’ **> evidently denote a supernatural spirit of rec- 
titude and self-control, 7. e., a good disposition. “ Et 
spiritum sanctum tuum ne auferas a me,’ *** must like- 
wise be interpreted impersonally. The “holy spirit” 
here referred to is the spirit of sanctity. There are still 
other texts in which “ spirit’ does not designate a Per- 
son, but the absolute Divine Nature, which is essentially 
spiritual. Cfr. John IV, 24: “ God is a spirit (spiritus, 
mvetpa), and they that adore him, must adore him in 


151 Gen. I, 2. 153 * Strengthen me with a perfect 
152 ““ Renew a right spirit within SpITritenu esas nna: 
my bowels.” Ps. L, 12. 154 “* Take not thy holy spirit 


from! ime.j70bs.).2,1 3% 


98 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


spirit and in truth.” In the eighth verse of the third 
-chapter of St. John’s Gospel, Christ Himself employs 
the word “ spirit” in its original impersonal and material 
sense of “wind.” For spiritus is derived from spirare, 
which means to blow, to breathe, as the Greek mvevpa 1S 
derived from mveiv, which has the same meaning.?°> 


2. THE Worp Spirit In 1Ts_ Hyposratic.. 


SENSE.—Aside from the texts already quoted, 
there is a considerable number of other Scriptural 
passages in which the Holy Ghost is clearly de- 
scribed as a real and individual person. 


a) There are in the first place certain epithets de- 
signed to restrict the concept of spirit and to show that 
it is not a mere impersonal abstraction. Holy Scrip- 


ture very frequently speaks not merely of the “ spirit — 


of God,” but of the “Holy Spirit” (73 é&yoy Tvevpa.) , 
and this personal appellation in some texts is indi- 
vidualized even more strongly by the reduplication of 
the definite article 76, as e. g. in John XIV, 26: 76 
mveipa To dywov. In some instances the Divine Spirit is 
spoken of as “the Spirit of the Father,” or “the Spirit 
of the Son,” or “the Spirit of Christ,” which clearly 
intimates opposition. to the Father and the Son.1* 1 
Cor. II, 12: “Spiritus qui ex Deo est (1d mveipa 1d ék 
tov @eov)— The Spirit that is of God,” distinctly recalls 
John I, 1: “Et Verbum erat apud Deum— And the 
Word was with God.” 


155 On the réle of the Holy Ghost Les Origines du Dogme de la 


in the Old Testament, see supra, p. 
18 sq. On the whole subject of 
this subdivision, Newman, Athana- 
sius, II, pp. 304 sqq.; Lebreton, 


Trinité, pp. 74 sqq. 

T5GHA Cts ROVE 7s) fra) Rom: 
WITL os Gale TV 30 62 Phil) Eras 
Te Pet. arEs 


= ce e < 
ee 


et Re an ee 


DS ec ae are 


WEE Qo Y GHOST 99 


b) The Holy Ghost is also called Paraclete 
__(Parachius, mapaxhnres His term is as peculiar 
“toSt. John as the term Logos. Like Logos and 

Sort of God; Paraclete and Holy Ghost denote 


one identical Person. 


Paraclete is not, however, predicated of the Holy | 
Spirit so exclusively as Logos is applied to the Son. 
Thus, in the First Epistle of St. John, Christ is called 
Paraclete.*” The Saviour Himself in the ‘Fourth Gos- 

“pel repeatedly refers to the Holy Ghost as ‘the’ “Para- 
“cleté. “What, then, is the meaning of Paraclete? The 
“word is used in three different senses, all derived from 
the root-verb Lena The first and original sense 
is “advocate.” (advocatus, from mapaxadeiv==in au- 
xilium advocare). But the operations which Jesus as- 
cribes to the Paraclete manifestly cannot be brought 
within the limits of this definition. Some exegetes de- 
rive Paraclete or Geel hala: (1. @., consolari) and 
take it to mean “comforter” (consolator). But if that 
derivation were correct, the noun should spell rapaxAfrTwp, 
not mapdxAntos. Moreover, it is plain from our Lord’s 
discourse after the Last Supper,1®* that the office of 
the Paraclete is far superior to that of a mere comforter. 
He is formally to take the place of the departing Son of 
God, and to represent Him in His Church in the same 
manner in which Christ had represented the Father. The 
Paraclete is to complete the work begun by the Saviour 
and to assist the newly founded Church unto the con- 
summation of the world, filling it with His sanctifying 


1571 John II, 1: “ Si quis pec- have an advocate with the Father, 
caverit, advocatum (mrapaxdnrTov) Jesus, Christ the just.” 
habemus apud Patrem, Iesum Chri- 158 John XIV-XVI. 


stum iustum—If any man sin, we 


1oo THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


power and with the spirit of truth. Paraclete may also 
- mean “representative,” from apaxadciv—=aliquem in 
locum alterius accire.1*® 

From these verbal definitions it is clear that the ‘‘ Para- 
clete ” or “ Holy Spirit” is not a mere Persone alop but 
a real person. 


c) The correctness of this interpretation is 
borne out by the characteristic description 
which Christ Himself has given of the Paraclete, 
His operations, and His relation to the Father 


any 


and the Son. He is an ‘ Pother: (alius, Nos ) 
than the Father who “sends” Him,'*° and He 
‘is also distinct from the Son, who sends Him 
“from the Father.” 1% 


Between Him who sends (mittens) and Him who is 
sent (missus) there is “logically the same relative oppo- 
“sition as “Between Father and Son. This distinction 
* furnishes “a “Safeguard against the modalistic error 
which conceives the Holy Spirit as a mere mode of 
manifestation of the Godhead. It is also useful in re- 
futing the Rationalist contention that the name Spiritus 
Sanctus merely shelters a poetical prosopopeeia or per- 
sonification. An impersonal being could not “teach all 
truth,” “give testimony,’ “bring all things to [the 
Apostles’] mind,” remind them of what Christ had told 
them, and so forth. There are many other texts of 
Sacred Scripture in which the Holy Spirit is described 
as possessing all the marks of a real personality. Thus 
He has a free will, for St. Paul speaks of Him as 


159 Cfr. Oswald, Trinitatslehre, 160 John XIV, 16. 
pp. 73 sqq., Paderborn 1888. 161 John XV, 26. 


PHENOL Y, GHOSE IOI 


“Dividens singulis, prout vult —(the Spirit worketh), 
dividing to every one according as he will.’ 18? He ap- 
points the bishops: “ Attendite vobis et universo gregi, 
in quo vos Spwitus sanctus posuit episcopos regere 
ecclesiam Det, quam acquisivit sanguine suo — Take 
heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the 
Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church 
of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” 1% 
He prays for us “ with unspeakable groanings,’ *** like 
as Christ “always lives to make intercession for us.” *® 
Nay, He formally ascribes to Himself subsistent per- 
sonality by commanding: “ Segregate mihi (po) Saulum 
et Barnabam in opus, ad quod assumpst (mposkéxdAnpat ) 
eos —(The Holy Ghost said to them): Separate me 
Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken 
then. 18° 


B. The Hypostatic Ditference Between the Holy 
Ghost and the Father and the Son 


I. St. PAUL AND THE DISCIPLES OF JOHN THE BAp- 
TIST AT EPHESUS.— On one occasion, when St. Paul 
came to Ephesus, he found there about twelve disci- 
ples of John the Baptist, and thinking that they had 
already received Baptism, he asked them: “ Have you 
received the Holy Ghost (amvedya aywv) since ye be- 
lieved?” They answered: ‘“ We have not so much as 
heard that there be a Holy Ghost (dAX’ odd, ef avedpa 
ayiov éotw Hkovoapev).” And when the Apostle queried 
further: “In what then were you baptized?” they re- 
plied: “In John’s baptism.” ... “ Having heard these 

1621 Cor. XII, 11. 165 “ Semper vivit ad interpellan- 


163 Acts XX, 28. dum pro nobis.”” Heb. VII, 25. 
164 Rom. VIII, 26. 166 Acts XIII, 2. 


io2 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT ~~ 


things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord 
Jesus.” And when St. Paul “had imposed his hands 
- on them, the Holy Ghost (76 aveipa 76 dy.ov) Came upon 
them.” 7°" This account makes it certain beyond a per- 
adventure that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are two dis- 
tinct Persons. For the initial ignorance of the disci- 
ples of John the Baptist did not refer to the Godhead 
as such (concerning which they must have been suffi- 
ciently instructed), but to that particular Divine Per- 
son who, in contradistinction to Jesus, the Son of God, 
is called Holy Ghost. In accordance with this marked 
difference between the two Divine Persons, John’s dis- 
ciples at Ephesus received two distinct sacraments, viz., 
Baptism (i. e., the Baptism of Jesus) and Confirmation. 


2. Curist’s Last Discourse—iIn His dis- 
course to His Disciples after the Last Supper,'® 
Christ clearly distinguishes between the Father, 
and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. “Ego rogabo 
Patrem et alium Paraclitwm (4ddAov mapdxdntov) 
dabit vobis, ut maneat vobiscum in aeternum — I 
will ask the Father, and he shall give you another 
Paraclete, that he may abide with you for 
ever.” *°° The “alius’’ so distinctly differentiates 
the Paraclete from both Christ Himself and 
the Father, that a blending of the Three Persons 
into one, or into two, is entirely out of question. 

(The Pather | “eivesi;) the, Paraclete 1s given: 
-and Christ “asks the Father to give’ the Para- 
jclete. It is futile to object that God may give 


167 Acts XIX, 1-6. 169 John XIV, 16. 
168 John XIV-XVI. 


THE SHOLY GHOST 103 


Himself to His creatures; for the Father is asked 
by the Son to give to the Apostles, not Himself, 
nor His Son, but the Paraclete, or Holy Ghost. 
The hypostatic difference between the Three Per- 
sons of the Divine Trinity is still more clearly 
marked in John XIV, 26: “Paraclitus autem 
Spiritus sanctus, quem muttet Pater in nomine 
meo, ile vos docebit omnia (‘O 8& mapéxAnros, 73° 
mVeba TO Gylov, O TéEupe 6 TaTHP ev TS GvOpaTi mov, éxeEivos 
[not: éxetvo] tas dbase mévra) — But the Paraclete, 
the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my 
name, he will teach you all things.” In this pas- 
sage, too, it is impossible to confound the Para- 
clete with the Father, because it is the Father 
who sends Him; or with Christ, because it is in 
Christ’s name that He is sent. Consequently the 
Paraclete is a different Person than either the 
Father or the Son. | 

3. THE IMMANENT ORIGIN OF THE Hoty 
Guost.—The Holy Ghost is “of God,” and; like 
_ the Logos, Himself a Divine Person, who owes 
Pris: Personality to His eternal procession from 
the Father. Sacred Scripture calls the Holy 
Ghost “the Spirit that is of God,*’ *°. and” dis- 
tinctly declares that He _‘proceedeth. from the 
iather.’? 171 Consequently the Holy Ghost is a 
“different Person from the Father. But is He 


170 r Cor. II, 12: +d wvevua 7d 171 John XV, 26: mapa Tov maTpos 
€k Tov Geo, KTropeveTat, 


104 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


likewise personally distinct from the Son? The 
context plainly shows that that is what St. John 
means to inculcate. “Cum autem venerit Para- 
clitus, quem ego mittam vobis a Patre, spiritum 
veritatis qui a Patre procedit (7° mvevpa Tis dAnbelas, 
8 mapa Tod marpds éxropeverar), ille testimonium perhi- 
bebit de me—But when the Paraclete cometh, 
whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit 
of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he 
shall give testimony of me. 7172 Here the Para- 
clete, or “Spirit of truth,’ who “proceedeth tr om 
the Father,” and who cannot therefore be iden- 
tical with the Father, is sharply distinguished 
from the Son, who sends Him; for no one can 
send Himself. Besides, St. John distinctly at- 
firms that the Paraclete is sent to give testi- 
mony of Christ. From all of which it is as 
plain as the light of day that the Bible makes a 
sharp distinction between the Holy Ghost and the 
Father and the Son, and that each must therefore 
be a separate and distinct Hypostasis. 


C. The Divinity of the Holy Ghost 


Although the Divinity of the Holy Ghost is 
logically deducible from the texts already quoted, 
the Pneumatomachian and Socinian heresies de- 
mand a special refutation. In formulating the 
Scriptural argument for the Divinity of the 


172 John XV, 26. 


| THE HOLY GHOST 10s 


Holy Ghost, we shall follow the same method 
which we employed in elaborating that for the 
Divinity of Christ. 

t., PRE, DIvINE ATTRIBUTES | OF THE) TLOLy 
Guost.—Sacred Scripture ascribes to the Holy 
Ghost divine attributes both of being and of} lite.) 
Therefore the Holy Ghost is "God. 


a) Of the transcendental attributes of being, truth is 
frequently ascribed to the Holy Ghost. He is called the 
substantial “ Spirit of truth,’ who “teaches all truth.” 
- John XVI, 13: “Cum autem venerit ille Spiritus veri- 
tatis (ro mvebpa THs dAnBelas), docebit vos omnem verita- 
tem (mracav tyv ddAndeav)— But when he, the Spirit of 
truth, is come, he will teach you all truth.” This sub- 
stantial Spirit of truth by virtue of Piss. “ procession 
from the Father ’’ must be increate and divine; else He 
could not be called the Inspirer of God’s infallible 
word.178 3 

A second characteristic prerogative of the Holy Ghost, 
which is indicated by His very name, is His substantial 
holiness or sanctity. The epithet sanctus (ayws) de- 
scribes the very essence of the Third Person of the 
Divine Trinity. Not as if the Father and the Son were 
not also substantially holy,’"* but the Holy Ghost pro- 
ceeds from Sanctity or Love as His principle, and 
is therefore Hypostatic Holiness or Personal Love.*’® 
It is for this reason that He is represented, per ap- 
propriationem, as “the Sanctifier,’ 7. e., the principle 
of all created holiness. ‘Cir’ Rom, V, 5:. “ Caritas Det 

Disia Petal sw2nt. Preuss, God: His Knowability, Es- 


174 God as such must be holy by sence, and Attributes, pp. 251 sqq. 
His very nature.—Cfr. Pohle- 175 Infra, Chapters III and IV. 


106, THE TRINITY IN THE WEW, TESTAMENT 


diffusa est in cordibus nostris per Spiritum Sanctum, 
qui datus est nobis — The charity of God is poured forth 
in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us.” 

The omnipotence of the Holy Ghost is more clearly 
defined in the supernatural sphere than in the domain 
of nature. St. Paul sublimely demonstrates it in his 
First Epistle to the Corinthians, where the Holy Ghost 
is eulogized as the author of the supernatural gifts of 
grace, such as wisdom, knowledge, the WOE of 
miracles, prophecy, “interpretation of speeches,” etc.” 
‘The Holy Ghost wrought His own theophany (or vile 
| manifestation) in the form of “ parted tongues of fire” 
on Pentecost Day, when, as Sacred Scripture tells us, 
the Apostles “were filled with the Holy Ghost, and 

. began to speak with divers tongues, according as 
the Holy Ghost gave them to speak.” 177 But the great- 
est miracle of His omnipotence was the Incarnation, when 
the Blessed Virgin Mary “conceived [her Divine Son] 
of the Holy Ghost.” 178 

Omnipresence and indwelling are likewise distinctly 
divine attributes. Now, the Holy Ghost is everywhere 
in Sacred Scripture represented as the penetrating, trans- 
forming, purifying, sanctifying, and vivifying principle 
of supernatural life; so much so that the Nicaeno-Con- 
stantinopolitan Creed expressly designates Him as the 
Vivihers ? Chr. Johny Wil Gas iS pirlius! est. gus sere 
ficat — It is the Spirit that quickeneth.” 2 Cor. III, 6: 
“To 6€ mvevpa Cworoet— But the Spirit quickeneth.” 
This vivifying and sanctifying omnipresence implies the 
divine prerogative of indwelling in the souls of the just. 


1761 Cor. XII, 4-11. — That which is conceived in her, 
177 Acts II, 4. is of the Holy Ghost.” 
178 Cfr. Matth. I, 20: ‘“‘ Quod in 179 Vivificator ({wotroids), % ey 


ea natum est, de Spiritu Sancto est He who gives life, 


THE HOLY GHOST 107 


The Saints are temples of the Holy Ghost. John XIV, 
17: “You shall know him; because he shall abide with 
you, and shall be in you.” 1 Cor. III, 16: “Know 
you not that you are the temples of the Holy Ghost, 
and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” 1 Cor. 
VI, 19: “Know you not that your members are the 
temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you 
have from God?” 

b) Of the attributes of divine life, omniscience be- 
longs to the Holy Ghost in the same measure as it 
belongs to the Logos. He is the “searcher of the deep 
things of God,” which “no man knoweth, but the Spirit 
of God.” 1 Cor. I, 10-11: “ Spiritus ommia scrutatur, 
etiam profunda Det. Quis enim hominum scit, quae 
sunt hominis, msi spiritus hominis, qui in ipso est. Ita 
et ea quae Dei sunt, nemo cognowit nisi Spiritus Dei — 
For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things 
of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, 
but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things 
also that are of God no man knoweth but the Spirit 
of God.” In virtue of this Divine Knowledge He is 
the revealer of the mysteries of God. “Spiritu loqut- 
tur mysteria.’ 8° Out of His perfect knowledge of the 
future free acts of rational creatures, the Holy Ghost 
inspires the prophets and predicts the future. John 
XVI, 13: “Quae ventura sunt, annuntiabit vobis — 
The things that are to come, he shall shew you.” *%4 

Besides these attributes, there are His external di- 
vine operations. Continuing the work of the Redemp- 
tion, the Holy Ghost is perpetually remitting sins in 
the Church. John XX, 22 sq.: “ Accipite Spiritum 
Sanctum: quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur ets 


L8Oine Gor, oN Ven 2 ChE 2 ete Ls 181 Cir.-also 1. Pet.) 1; ‘10° saq.3..2 
21. Peto 21: 


8 


108 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


— Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall 
forgive, they are forgiven them.’—‘ The charity of 
God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy 
Ghost,” 82 and it is the Holy Ghost through whom the 
just are adopted as children of God. Rom. VIII, 14: 
“ Ouicumque enim Spiritu Dei aguntur, i sunt filu Det 
‘ — For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they 
are the sons of God.” He is, lastly, the seal of super- 
natural life stamped on our souls. Eph. I, 13: “ Cre- 
dentes signati estis Spiritu promissioms sancto |. @., 
Spiritu a Deo promisso]— Believing, you were signed 
with the Holy Spirit of promise” (that is to say, with 
the Spirit promised by God). 


2. THE Hoty GuHost ENTITLED To DIVINE 
Worsuip.—The Trinitarian form of benediction 
puts the Holy Ghost on a par with the Father 
and the Son. This general argument for His 
adorability can be fortified by a special proof, 
drawn from the peculiar malice involved in blas- 
pheming the Person of the Holy Ghost. 


Cfr. Matth. XII, 31-32: “ Omne peccatum et blas- 
phemia remittetur hominibus ; Spiritus autem blasphemia 
non remittetur. Et quicunque dixerit verbum contra 
Filium hominis [i. e., Christum] remittetur ei; que 
autem dixerit contra Spiritum Sanctum, non remittetur 
ei neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro — Every sin 
and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blas- 
phemy of 1%* the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And 


182 Rom. V, 5. renders it in The Four Gospels, A 
183 Better, against, as Fr. Spencer New Translation, New York 1898. 


CHE DIVINT TYy-OF SHE HOEY: GHOST 2709 


whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, 
it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against 
the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither 
in this world, nor in the world to come.” Therefore 
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is a more grievous 
offence than ordinary blasphemy; which could not be 
were not the Holy Ghost at least coequal in majesty 
and adorableness with the Father and the Son. As 
for Christ’s dictum in the text just quoted, we need 
hardly say that it is only as man that He subordinates 
Himself to the Holy Ghost, in the same sense in which 
He elsewhere says: 184 “ The Father is greater than I.” 
This argument is confirmed by all those Scriptural texts 
which contain the phrase “temple of the Holy Ghost,” 
for a temple is reared for the worship of the Divinity. 


3. THE NAME “Gop” APPLIED TO THE HOLY 
Guost.—Although the Bible nowhere expressly 
calls the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity 
“God,” the appellation occurs frequently in con- 
texts where ‘“‘God” can be legitimately substituted 
tor, Holy Ghost,” 


a) To begin with, the Old Testament contains a num- 
ber of passages which are directly referred to the Holy 
Ghost in the New. Is. VI, 8-9, we read: “Et audim 
vocem Domini (YIN) dicentis: ...Vade et dices po- 
pulo huic: audite audientes et nolite intelligere — And I 
heard the voice of the Lord, saying: . . . Go and thou 
shalt say to this people: Hearing, hear and understand 
not.” Now St. Paul teaches:*®° “ Bene Spiritus Sanc- 
tus locutus est per Isaiam prophetam: Vade et dices, 


184 John XIV, 28, 185 Acts XXVIII, 25. 


110 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


etc. — Well did the Holy Ghost speak to our fathers by 
Isaias the prophet, saying: Go to this people and say 
to them, etc.” According to St. Paul, therefore, the 
Holy Ghost is identical with the Old Testament ‘27x, 
that is to say, with the one true God, to whom alone this 
name is attributable as a quasi nomen proprium.®® A 
similar substitution of names takes place whenever a 
prophecy is alternately ascribed to the Father, to the 
Son, and to the. Holy Ghost.18* If the Father is God, 
and the Son is God, the Holy Ghost, too, must be God. 

b) In many passages of the New Testament the word 
“God” can be directly substituted for ‘‘ Holy Ghost.” 
Thus St. Peter addresses Ananias in these words: 
“Cur tentavit Satanas cor tuum, mentiri te Spiritui 
Sancto.... Non es mentitus hominibus, sed Deo — 
Why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst 
lie to the Holy Ghost. . . . Thou hast not lied to men, 
but to God.” +88 By substitution we get the proposition: 
“The Holy Ghost is God.’ St. Paul, when he asks: °° 
“ Nescitis quia templum Dei estis et Spiritus Dei habitat 
in vobis? — Know you not that you are the temple of 
God and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? ”— 
plainly intimates that the Holy Ghost dwelling in 
“the temple of God” is identical with God Him- 
self.49° A comparison of John I, 13: “Ex Deo nati 
sunt — They are born of God,” with John III, 5: “ Nisi 
quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto — Unless 
a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,” 
shows that “ Holy Ghost ” = “God.” Finally St. Paul 
says in his Epistle to the Hebrews: “ Multifariam 


186 Compare Ps. XCIV, 8-11 with ASO Teo seto. 
Heb. III, 7-11. 190 Cfr, 1. Cor. VI, 493 a Cor. VI, 
187 Vide supra, pp. 29 sa. 16, 


188 Acts V, 3-4. 


TE DI MINIT: OR ACER HOLY GHOST 211 


multisque modis olim Deus loquens patribus in prophetis 
—God .. . at sundry times and in divers manners 
spoke in times past to the fathers by the proph- 
ets,’ ®t and St. Peter assures us: “ Non enim volun- 
tate humana allata est aliquando prophetia, sed Spiritu 
Sancto inspirati locutt sunt sancti Det homines — For 
prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: 
but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy 
Ghost.i A 


The synthesis of the Three Divine Persons 
in the complete concept of the Trinity is most 
perfectly consummated in the so-called ordo 
subsistendi,® by virtue of which the Three ob- 
serve a. constant order and follow one another 
in an immutable sequence, The members of this 
formula can not be transposed. The Father 
must be conceived strictly as the First, the Son as 
the Second, and the Holy Ghost as the Third Per- 
son of the Godhead. Yet this i is not to be under- 
stood as implying a sequence of time or dignity, 
a before or after, a more or less; for in virtue 
of their absolute consubstantiality or homoousia 
all Three Divine Persons are coequal in rank, 
eternity, and\power.*°* The numerical sequence 


191 Heb. I, 1. 

1922 Pet. I, 21. For a fuller 
elucidation of the topic of this para- 
graph, cfr. Heinrich, Dogmat. The- 
ologie, IV, § 228; Kleutgen, De Ipso 
Deo, pp. 489-509. 

~~ 193’AkodNovdla KaTa Thy Taku, 
194 Cfr. the Athanasian Creed: 


“ Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius aut 
posterius, nihil maius aut minus, sed 
totae tres personae coaeternae et 
coaequales — And in this Trinity 
none is afore or after other, none 
is greater or less than another, but 
the whole Three Persons are Co- 
eternal together, and co-equal.” 


112 THE TRINITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 


of the Three Divine Persons in the Trinity, 
therefore, simply implies a succession with re- 
gard to origin, the Father being the principle 
of the Son, and the Father and the Son together 
the principle of the Holy Ghost. In our Lord’s 
baptismal mandate, in the form of baptism which 
He Himself dictated, in the Comma Ioanneum, 
in the Christian doxologies, and wherever else 
the Bible formally enumerates the Three Divine 
Persons, this order is unvaried. When Holy 
Scripture seems to make an exception (as, e. g., 
for, Xn sdq.), it 1s, easy to isee:thaty no 
formal enumeration is intended. 


READINGS : — On the theology of the Holy Ghost cfr. St. Atha- 
nasius, De Trinit. et Spiritu Sancto Libri III; Didymus Alex., De 
Spiritu Sancto (in Migne, Patr. Gr., 39, 1031 sqq.); St. Am- 
brose, De Spiritu. Sancto ad Gratianum August.; S. Thom., 
Contr. Gent., IV, 16 sqq. (Rickaby, 1. c., pp. 349 sqq.) and the 
commentators; Petavius, De Trinit., II, 6, 13 sqq., VII, 5; Th. 
Schermann, Die Gottheit des hl. Geistes nach den griechischen 
Vatern des vierten Jahrhunderts, Freiburg 1901; Cardinal Man- 
ning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost, Am. reprint, 
New York 1905; J. Lebreton, Les Origines du Dogme de la 
Trimité, pp. 251 sqq., 283 sqq., 325 sqq., 371 sqq., 418 sqq., Paris 
1910; E. W. Winstanley, Spirit in the New Testament: An 
Enquiry into the Use of the word mvevua in all Passages, and 
a Survey of the Evidence Concerning the Holy Spirit, Cam- 
bridge 1908; H. B. Swete, The Holy Spirit in the New Testa- 
ment, London 1909; J. Forget, art. “ Holy Ghost” in the Catholic 
Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, pp. 409 sqq. 


CHAPTER II 


THE BLESSED TRINITY IN TRADITION 


The dogma of the Blessed Trinity was de- 
fined by. the Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325. 
The ensuing Antitrinitarian controversies, which 
marked the period ending with the year 381, . 
came to a head at the Second Ecumenical Coun- 
cil, which safeguarded the doctrine against va- 
rious heretical incursions. In the precise for- 
mulation which it received at Nicaea and Con- 
stantinople, the dogma has come down to our 
time, and we can consequently, in demonstrating 
it from Tradition, confine our attention to the 
first four centuries of the Christian era. Since 
the condemnation of various heretical perver- 
sions affords the best insight into the genuine 
ecclesiastical Tradition, we shall preface our 
positive exposition by a brief account of the 
Antitrinitarian heresies up to the beginning of 
the fifth century. 


113 


SECTION tf 


THE ANTITRINITARIAN HERESIES AND THEIR 
CONDEMNATION BY THE CHURCH 


There are two logical processes whereby the 
dogma of the Blessed Trinity can be essentially 
perverted; per defectum, 1. e., by exaggerating 
the notion of unity and eliminating that of Trin- 
ity (Monarchianism) ; or per excessum, 1. e., by 
exaggerating the concept of the Trinity, making 
it a Trinity of Divine Natures and thereby 
denying the unity of Persons (Tritheism). 
Tritheism will receive due consideration in the 
second part of this volume, in which we shall 
expound the doctrine of Unity in the _ Trinity 
(Unitas in Trinitate). 


Monarchianism, or the doctrine of the Monarchia, as 
it is called by an assumption of exclusive orthodoxy 
like that which has led to the adoption of the term “ Uni- 
tarianism ” at the present day, denies the distinction of 
Persons in the Divine Nature. It is threefold: (1) 
crass Monarchianism, in its present-day form called Uni- 
tarianism, which denies all distinction of persons in 
God. (2) Modalism, so-called, which admits a Trinity 
of Persons, but holds that the difference between them 


1Cfr. Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century, p. IIZ. 


114, 


MONARCHIANISM 11s 


is not real, but merely nominal or modal; this heresy is 
called Sabellianism from its chief oon Sabellius. 
(3) Subordinationism, which, while it readily grants 
that the three Divine Persons are really distinct, insists 
that they are not coequal, but subordinate one to the 
other (Arianism; Macedonianism). This logical division 
of Monarchianism “substantially coincides with the suc- 
cessive phases of its historic development. 


READINGS : — The various text-books of Church History, espe- 
cially Alzog (Pabisch-Byrne’s translation), Vol. I, pp. 348 sqq., 
5th ed., Cincinnati 1899; Funk-Cappadelta, 4 Manual of Church 
Fristoe Vol. I, London 1910; *Hefele, A History of the Coun- 
cils of the Church, Vols. I sqq.; *Oswald, Trinitatslehre, §§ 8-0, 
Paderborn 1888; H. Couget, La SS. Trinité et les Dogmes An- 
titrinitaires, Baris 1905; F. J. Hall, The Trinity, pp. 63 sqq., 
New York 1gio. 


AR DICER 


CRASS MONARCHIANISM 


I. [HE Heresy or MoNnarcHIANISM.—This 
is an ancient heresy, the beginnings of which 
can be traced to the second century of the Chris- 
tianera. It is either Dynamistic or Patripassian. 
Dynamistic Monarchianism asserts that the 
Father alone is true God, and that the divine ele- 
ment in Christ was merely a power (Svvams) in- 
dwelling in Him as an impersonal divine spirit. 
Patripassian Monarchianism completely identifies 
the Son with the Father, asserting that the Per- 
son of the Father was made flesh and suffered on 
the Cross. The Patripassian is superior to the 


116 THE TRINITY IN TRADITION 


Dynamistic form of Monarchianism in so far as 
it acknowledges Christ to be a manifestation of 
the Divine Essence. 


a) Dynamistic Monarchianism was championed by the 
Ebionites, the Cerinthians, and the Carpocratians, who 
all held that Christ was a mere man, though endowed 
with divine powers or energies, after the manner of the 
Old Testament prophets or the pagan soothsayers. The 
chief representatives of this heresy were Theodotus of 
Byzantium (about A.D. 192), a tanner by trade, and 
his pupil Theodotus the Younger. The latter, sur- 
named the Money-Changer, asserted that a divine power 
had indeed descended upon the man Jesus at his bap- 
tism, but that the same Divine Power (Adyos, vids ) 
had appeared in Melchisedech, who had been media- 
tor and intercessor for the angels in the same sense 
in which Christ was for men, and whose followers 
were therefore called Melchisedechians.2 A somewhat 
later protagonist of this heresy was the notorious Paul 
of Samosata, an extremely clever man, who died as 
Bishop of Antioch, about A.D. 260. He taught that 
Christ, though supernaturally begotten and born of a 
virgin, was nevertheless a mere man, and that the Di- 
vine Logos (i. e., the impersonal wisdom of God) was 
not united to Him substantially, but simply as a quality 
or power; whence His deification was foreordained. 
Thus “the Logos was greater than Christ; the Logos 
was from above, Christ from below ; Christ suffered in 
His nature and wrought miracles by grace.” It was 

2 Alzog, Universal Church His- the tanner, and his pupil the 
tory, English tr., Vol. I 350; money-changer, cfr. Eusebius, Hist. 
Blunt’s Dictionary of Sects, Here- Eccles., V, 28; Theodoretus, Haeret. 


sies, etc., new impression, London Fab. TL, 5: 
1903, pp. 304 sq. On Theodotus 


MONARCHIANISM 117 


only by means of divine grace and His own co-operation 
therewith, that Christ ultimately became God.* 

A kindred heresy was that of Photinus, Bishop of 
Sirmium (d. 366), who “increased the scandal, by ad- 
vocating, and with greater boldness, an almost Unitarian 
doctrine.” * He taught that the Logos is the imper- 
sonal intellect, while the Holy Ghost is the impersonal 
power of God, in whom there is but one Person, wiz., 
the Father. Hence @eés=doyordérwp. Christ, according 
to Photinus, was a simple man, in whom the Logos 
dwelt as efficient power (évépyea Spactixy), and who 
earned for himself the name of “ God” by his obedience. 

The main argument of all these heretics was this. 
If the Father were other than the Son, and each were 
nevertheless true God, it would be necessary to assume 
the existence of two Gods (Ditheism). Consequently 
Christ, though endowed with divine power (dvvams), is a 
mere man. Paul of Samosata quoted in support of his 
heresy John XVII, 3; XIV, 28; Matth. XI, 27; Luke 
Pes2. 

b) The Patripassian form of Monarchianism, accord- 
ing to the Philosophoumena,® seems to have had for 
its author Noétus of Smyrna, a philosopher of the 
school of Heraclitus. He denied the distinction of Per- 
sons in the Godhead and taught that the Father was 
born, suffered, and died in Christ.6 Another leader of the 


3 Cfr. Alzog, I, 350 sq.; Hergen- 
rother, Kirchengeschichte, 3rd ed., 
Vol. I, p. 222. There is some diff- 
culty in determining what were the 
opinions of the Samosatene. Cfr. 
Newman, Select Treatises of St. 
Athanasius, II, 237 sqq.; Ip—em, The 
Arians of the Fourth Century, pp. 3 
sqq. 

4Newman, The Arians of the 
Fourth Century, p. 313. 


5 1X, 7 saqq., ed. Miller, p. 284, 
Oxon. 1851. Cfr. Bardenhewer- 
Shahan, Patrology, pp. 209 sqq. 

6 “ Pater passus est.” In a frag- 
ment of the writings of Hippolytus 
Noétus’s teaching is stated in these 
terms: “Tdv Xpwordyv elvar tov 
marépa Kal avroy Tov matépa 
yeyevynobar Kat merovOévar Kai 
amoreOynkévar, (Fragm. contr. 
Noét., c. 1.) On Noétus and the 


‘118 ANTI-TRINITARIAN HERESIES 


Patripassian heretics was Praxeas (about A.D. 192), a 
contemporary of Tertullian, by whom he was denounced 
as one of the “ vanissimt Monarchiani’”’ who boasted, 
“ Monarchiam habemus.’* Regardless of the distinc- 
tion between Nature and Person, Praxeas taught that 
the Divine Substance has but one Hypostasis. As 
Father; God is<a spirit, but He 1s -calledaSon in so 
far as He has assumed human flesh (without a soul)— 
“Tpse se filium sibi fecit.’ Consequently Christ is in- 
deed true God, but He is not the Son of God; and inas- 
much as Christ was the Father incarnate, it was the 
Father who suffered and died on the Cross, In con- 
firmation of his error Praxeas quoted John X, 30: 
“Ego et Pater unum sumus—I and the Father are 
one;” and John XIV, 9: “ Philippe, qui videt me, videt 
et Patrem — Philip, he that seeth me, seeth the Father 
also.” Praxeas and his adherents were therefore also 
called viowaropes.® 


2. ATTITUDE OF THE CHuRcH Towarps Mo- 
NARCHIANISM.—The Church strenuously op- 
posed all these heresies even before she began 
to hold ecumenical councils. 


The iniquitous Theodotus of Byzantium was excom- 
municated by Pope Victor I (189-198). Paul of 
Samosata was called to account by several synods,°® but, 
clever sophist that he was, escaped conviction until Mal- 
chion, a learned presbyter of Antioch, was able to ex- 
pose the drift of his errors and tore the mask from his 


Noétians, cfr. Blunt, Dictionary of 8 On this term, see Newman, Se- 
Sects, Heresies, etc., pp. 373 sdqq., lect Treatises of St. Athanasius, II, 
new impression, London 1903. 475 sq. 


7 Contr. Praxeam, c. 3. 9 A. D. 264 sqq. 


MONARCHIANISM 119 
face at a council held in Antioch A.D. 269.%° Paul 
was deposed and excommunicated, but tenaciously held 
on to his see until the Emperor Aurelian put an end 
to the reign of Queen Zenobia, into whose favor he 
had insinuated himself.12 

Noétus, when cited before a council in Asia Minor, 
sought to conceal his Patripassian leanings by empha- 
sizing his monotheism, and pathetically exclaimed: 
“What wrong have I done? I adore the One God, I 
know but One God, and none beside Him, who was 
born, suffered, and died!’”’?2 The assembled bishops 
(called presbytert) did not reply that they were Ditheists. 
They simply declared: ‘‘ We, too, adore the One God, 
but in a manner in which we know that He is adored 
rightly. And we likewise possess the One Christ, ... 
the Son of God, who suffered and died.” 2% Noétus 
was excommunicated A.D. 170. Praxeas had to recant 
his errors in writing. He went to Africa, where he 
found a staunch opponent in Tertullian, who employed 
the Apostles’ Creed as the most effective weapon against 
the Patripassian heresy.?* 

Against the later “ Unitarianism” of the Socinians, 
‘who also denied the Blessed Trinity and the Divinity 
of Jesus Christ, and taught a sort of abstract mono- 
theism, Pope Paul IV (A.D. 1555) issued his dogmatic 
Constitution “Cum quorundam.” 


10 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa- Anni 269” is doubtful. Cfr. Bar- 


trology, p. 165. 

11 A.D. 272. Cfr. Newman, The 
Arians of the Fourth Century, pp. 
3 sqq.; Edm. Venables in the Dic- 
tionary of Christian Biography, s. v. 
“Paulus of Samosata’’; Hefele, 
History of the Councils (Engl. ed.), 
Vol. I, pp. 118 sqq. The authen- 
ticity of the “ Epistola Synodica 


denhewer-Shahan, Patrology, p. 165. 

12 Quoted by Epiphanius, Haeres., 
57, I. K 

13 Epiph,, <1. 2a. 

14 Tertull., Contr. Prax., c. 2. 

15 Denzinger-Bannwart,  Enchiri- 
dion, n. 993. On modern Antitrini- 


‘ tarianism, see Chapter IV, § 1, in- 


fra. 


120 ANTI-TRINITARIAN HERESIES 


ReapIncs: —*Hagemann, Die rodmische Kirche und ihr Ein- 
fuss auf Disziplin und Dogma in den drew ersten Jahrhunderten, 
Freiburg 1864; Hergenrother-Kirsch, Kirchengeschichte, 4th ed., 
Vol. I, pp. 245 sqq., Freiburg 1902; Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, 
and ed., Vol. I, Freiburg 1892; A. Harnack, art. “ Monarchian- 
ism” in the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious 
Knowledge, Vol. VII, pp. 453-461, New York 1g910; J. Tixeront, 
History of Dogmas, English tr., Vol. I, 290 sqq., St. Louis 1910; 
J. Chapman, O. S. B., art. “ Monarchians” in the Catholic En- 
cyclopedia, Vol. X, pp. 448 sqaq. 


ARTIGLE 2 


THE MODALISM OF SABELLIUS 


1. THE Heresy OF SABELLIUS.—Sabellius 
(about A. D. 250) was not an extreme Monarchi- 
anist; he recognized the existence of a Trinity, 
though an imperfect one, in the Godhead.** 


The Sabellian Triad is no true, real, immanent Trin- 
ity. It is merely a modal, external, and transitive dis- 
‘tinction, based upon the relation of God (in Whom the 
Sabellians admit but one Person) to the created universe. 
In other words, the Trinity of the Sabellians is a merely 
external Trinity of manifestation, not an internal one 
of life. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, they argue, are 
| three distinct modes (zpécwra) by which the one Person 
_ of the Godhead manifests Himself, and which are inter- 
related as body, soul, and spirit in man, or light, 
warmth, and sphericity in the sun. The undifferen- 
tiated Divine Monad has in course of time developed 
and “dilated” into a Triad. In its role of Creator it is 

16 Cfr. Newman, The Arians of also Chapman’s article ‘* Monar- 


the Fourth Century, Ch. I, § 5: chians” in the Catholic Encyclo- 
‘““Sabellianism,’” pp. 116-132; see pedia, Vol. X, 448 sqq. 


SABELLIAN MODALISM 121 


called Father; as the Redeemer it is called Son; and as 
the Sanctifier, enlightening and regenerating the faithful, 
/ is called a Ghost. Hence the Modalist formula: 

“ Tpeis GS ev bug brootdce, he she still more sharply : 

“Mia brdaTaois Kal TPELS eve pyeiat.” 

Although the Trinity of Sabellius was not a real 
Trinity of Persons, but merely a triple differentiation of 
office and external manifestation, he nevertheless adopted, 
“for the sake of ‘perverting it, the orthodox formula of 
tpia mpoowra. He Ce Sia, played upon the am- 
biguity of the word mpoownor, Which etymologically may 
signify a person, outward ‘appearance, a countenance, or 
a character in a play. 7 Tt was on this account apy 
the later Oriental theologians avoided the term mpéowrov 
(persona = mask) for person; or, when they did employ 
it, defined it most carefully as zpdcwroy éwadortarov, in 
order to exclude the Sabellian interpretation of zpdcw- 


, 
TOV avuTooTaTop. 


2. Irs CONDEMNATION.—Sabellius, after hav- 
ing been treated with considerate kindness by 
Pope Zephyrin, was finally excommunicated by 
Callistus (217-222). We know this from the 
Philosophoumena of St. Hippolytus (first com- 
plete edition by Miller, Oxford 1851). 


After his excommunication Sabellius retired to the 
Lybian Pentapolis (about A.D. 257), and there con- 
tinued to propagate his errors. He was opposed by 
Dionysius the Great, Bishop of Alexandria, who wrote 
several dogmatic epistles in refutation of Sabellianism, 
but in his zeal for the truth went to the other extreme, 


17 Alzog, Universal Church History (English tr.), Vol. I, p. 355. 


122 ANTI-TRINITARIAN HERESIES 


so that he was accused of teaching Ditheism.1% The 
most objectionable passage ** in the latter’s writings was 
probably this: “The Son of God is a work or creature 
(zoinua) and something that has come into being; He 
is not distinct according to His nature, but foreign to 
the Father in substance” [otoia undoubtedly is here the 
same as vrdoraois, both terms being used promiscuously 
for a time to signify nature or person]. At this junc- 
ture (A.D. 262) Pope Dionysius issued a truly epoch- 
making decision, of which St. Athanasius has preserved 
some fragments. In his epistle the sovereign teacher of 
Christendom distinctly condemns the Sabellian heresy, but 
at the same time censures the ditheistic expressions used 
by the Bishop of Alexandria. It is not too much to 
say that this Apostolic letter condemned not only 
Monarchianism and Sabellianism, but likewise, in ad- 
vance, Subordinationism and Tritheism, which were the 
products of a later age.2° The energetic and loyal 
Bishop of Alexandria, who in his zeal had overshot the 
truth, readily submitted and satisfied the Pope of his 
good faith by means of an explicit statement which he 
forwarded to Rome. This important document em-. 
bodies two points of particular interest. In the first 
place Denis explains that he had employed the unfor- 
tunate term zoiyya not in the meaning of “ creature,” but 
in the hypostatic sense of productus, 1. e., genttus, in 
order to emphasize the reality and self-existence of the 
Person of the Logos against Sabellius. Secondly, he 
cordially accepts the new locution épo0ovc1ws rH eo, used 


18 Newman, The Arians of the lect Treatises of St. Athanasius, I, 


Fourth Century, pp. 126 sq. PP. 45 sq. 

19 Quoted by St. Athanasius, De 20 The Latin text of such parts of 
Sententia Dionysti Alex., Migne, P. - Pope Dionysius’s epistle as have 
G., XXV, 465. Cir. Newman, Se- come down to us, can be found in 


Scheeben’s Dogmatik, Vol. I, p. 746. 


SUBORDINATIONISM 123 


by Pope Dionysius in his dogmatic epistle, though, as 
he takes pains to remark, he had “not found this term 
anywhere in Holy Scripture.” ?*. This goes to show that 
the term was coined and circulated long before the 
Council of Nicaea; in other words, the heresy of Arius 
was condemned before it was ever hatched. The 
phrase 6poovows +6 ed embodies all the essential ele- 
ments of the dogma:— Christ’s Divine Sonship, His Di- 
vinity, and His Consubstantiality with the Father.?? 


READINGS: — Worm, Historia Sabelliana 1796; *Dollinger, 
Hippolyt und Callistus, Ratisbon 1853 (English translation, 
Hippolytus and Callistus, Edinburg 1876) ; Newman, The Arians 
of the Fourth Century, pp. 116 sqq., New Ed., London 1901 


ARTICLE 3 


THE SUBORDINATIONISM OF ARIUS AND MACEDONIUS 


1. THE Heresy oF SUBORDINATIONISM.—This 
heresy involved the Church in many terrific con- 
flicts. It started with an attack on the co- 
equality of the Son with the Father (Arianism), 
and ultimately impugned the dogma of the Con- 
substantiality of the Holy Ghost with the Father 
and the Son (Macedonianism, Pneumatoma- 
chians). . 


21 Cfr. Newman, Select Treatises quod fides antiqua pepererat — This 
of St. Athanasius, I, p. 44. is that famous term duoovcros, to 

22 Cfr. St. August., Contr. Maxim., which the ancient faith had given 
II, 14, 3: ‘“ Hoc est illud dmoovators birth,” ; 


9 


124 ANTI-TRINITARIAN HERESIES 


a) The salient tenets of Arianism ** are these: The 
Logos began His existence in time. Consequently there 
was a time when the Son of God was not (jw ore, 
ore otk 7v). He is not begotten out of the substance 
et the Father, but made by the free will of. the Father 
“out of nothing ” (é& odx évrwy yéyovev 6 Adyos). ‘Though 
He existed before all creatures, 7. e., before the beginning 
of time, the Logos does not exist from everlasting, 
and consequently He is not God, but a creature of the 
Father (aolnua, xticua tov marpds), exalted indeed above 
all other creatures, because God’s instrument in creating 
the world. Therefore He is “God” hy grace (éce, 
petoxy, KaTaxpyotiKos), an intermedi lary being between 
God and the world (wecos yevopevos). Although it was 
possible for the Logos to sin, and His will was therefore 
alterable (tperrés, dAXowrds), still by a perfect use of 
free will and grace He actually became sinless. 

To deceive the unsuspecting faithful, and to veil his 
errors, Arius played fast and loose with the words 
yerytos (1. e., creatus, os and -yervytos_ (1. é., genitus ) 
and their neers ay évnTos (4.2.5 increatus ) and 
dyévvgros (i. 5 tigenitus), just as the Semi- Arians later 
did with époovcws (1. ¢., consubstantial ) and séovovaros 
(i. e., of like substance). 

b) The heresy of Macedonius and Marathon was 
an offshoot of Semi-Arianism. Macedonius, who was 
Bishop of Constantinople about A. D. 360, taught that 
the Holy Ghost is a creature of the Logos, by whom, 
according to the Arian theory, all things were created. 
This completed the essential subordination of the Three 
Persons of the Divine Trinity, whom these heretics 
ranked as follows: A Great One=the Holy Ghost; a 


283 Cfr. Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century, pp. 201 sqq. 


SUBORDINATIONISM 125 


CreatepwOnd —— the iogos;. Greatest /of all God) the 
Father. | 

Some Semi-Arians were willing to admit the Divinity 
of Christ; but they refused to forswear the heretical 
conceit that the Holy Ghost is a mere creature. It was 
for this reason that St. Athanasius called them “ “enemies 
of the Spirit ” "_(xvevpardpaxor). 


2. Its CONDEMNATION.—For the first time 
since the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem, 
the infallible Church exercised her teaching au- 
thority against Subordinationism at two ecu- 
menical synods, of which the first condemned 
Arianism, while the second dealt a death blow to 
the heresy of the Macedonianists. 

A yelhemtirst: PE cumenicals Councils, heldirat 
Nicaea A. D. 325, in the reign of Constantine,?* 
solemnly réyected {the heresy “of iris, lt did 
this in a twofold manner: positively, by enlarg- 
ing and expounding the Apostles’ Creed; nega- 
tively, by anathematizing Arius and his fol- 
lowers. 


The famous Nicene Creed revolves about the term 


6e 


dpoovous, which was rejected by the Arians as " un- 
scriptural.” The symbol itself is equivalent toa dogmatic 
definition, and its history is highly instructive for any 
one who would trace the development of the Catholic 
conception of the dogma of the Most Holy Trinity. 

24 For a brief account of its his- 270. More detailed information in 
tory, its transactions, and its conse- Hefele’s History of the Councils, 


quences, see Newman, The Arians Vols. I and II of the English trans- 
of the Fourth Century, pp. 237- lation. 


tae 


126 ANTI-TRINITARIAN HERESIES 


At first the Fathers of the Council thought it sufficient 
to adopt the formula “ Filius ex Deo” against the 
Arian é& oix dév7ov. But when the friends of Arius, 
particularly Bishop Eusebius of Cesarea, in order to 
conceal the real question at issue, willingly accepted this 
formula on the ground that all things are “ from God,” 
the é« tov watpds was amplified into é ris obctas rod 
matpos. Finally, in order to baffle the Eusebians, the 
phrase dépuoovows 1 watpi (consubstantial with the 
Father) was added. This proved the utter condemnation 
of the Arian heresy. The decisive passages of the Nicene 
Creed finally took this shape: “Et in unum Dominum, 
Tesum Christum, Filium Dei, qui ex Patre unigenitus 
generatur (tov vidv tod cod yewnlévta ex Tov matpds 
povoyern), hoc est ex substantia Patris (ék ris obatas rod 
matpos), Deum ex Deo (@cdv & @eoi), lumen de lumine, 
Deum verum ex Deo vero, genitum, non factum, 
(yeni sina, od momblevra), consubstantialem Patri ( 6j0- 
ovciov 7 matpt)— And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the 
Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that 
is, from the substance of the Father: God from God, 
‘Light from Light, Very God from eer God, begotten 
not made, consubstantial with the Father.” ?> This 
clear-cut definition irrevocably established the dogma of 
Christ’s Divine Sonship, His Divinity, and His Con- 
substantiality with the Father.” 

The heretical antitheses of Arius were condemned 
in a special anathematism appended to the Creed, 
which reads as follows: “ Eos autem qui dicunt: erat 
[tempus] quando non erat (iw more, dre otk jv) et 
25 Newman’s translation. Cfr. Se- 26 Cfr. St. Athanasius, De Decret. 
lect Treatises of St. Athanasius in Nicaen. Syn., reproduced in Migne, 


Controversy with the Arians, Vol. 1, P.G., XXV, 415 sqq. 
Pp. 57. 


Ie ‘ A 


= 


whe 
hn Bh. SS Te 


{ 


t 
~ —_ 
E-Lak 


SUBORDINATIONISM 127 


priusquam gigneretur, non erat, et avunt Filium Dei ex 
non exstantibus factum (ér é& odk dvtwv éyévero) vel ex 
alia substantia vel essentia esse (é érépas troordoews 7) 
odctas evar) vel mutabilem vel vertibilem (dAAowTOv 7) 
tpentov) esse, hos anathematizat Ecclesia catholica — 
But those who say, ‘Once he was not,’ and ‘ Before 
His generation He was not,’ and ‘He came into being 
from nothing, or those who pretend that the Son of 
God is ‘of other subsistence or substance,’ or ‘ created,’ 
or ‘alterable,’ or ‘mutable,’ the Catholic Church anath- 


- ematizes.” 2? In this passage the Holy Synod reaffirms 
/, the Consubstantiality of the Son of God (4. 2.,.Christ); 
, t.i-by rejecting the doctrine of the H eterousia, and asserts 
“His Divinity by emphasizing that He possesses the attri- 
‘butes of eternity, uncreatedness, and immutability. 


b) Pope Damasus, at a synod held in Rome, 
A. D. 380,2° so thoroughly repudiated the heresy 
of Macedonius that the twenty-fourth in his 
series of anathemas has been justly styled “a 
summary of the contents of all the others, and 
the keystone of all previous dogmatic for- 
mulas.” ®® The Second Ecumenical Council, con- 
voked by the Emperor Theodosius I at Con- 
stantinople, A.D. 381, formally defined the 
Divinity of the Holy Ghost in these words: “Et 


27 Newman’s translation. (Select so definitely settled and so familiarly 


Treatises of St. Athanasius, Vol. received as afterwards.” (Select 

Pe pease) Treatises of St. Athanasius, Vol. II, 
28 The Fathers of Nicaea use Pp. 4538-) 

trécracis aS synonymous with 29 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En- 


‘ovcla, The two terms, as Cardinal chiridion, Nos. 58 saqq. 


Newman points out, at that time 30 Scheeben, Dogmatik, I, p. 748. 
“had not their respective meanings 


128 ANTI-TRINITARIAN HERESIES 


im S puritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem 
(<is TO Tvedpa TO AyLov, TO KUpLOV, TO Cworo.ov ) , qui ex 
Patre procedit (70 EK TOU TaTpos éxrropevdpevov ) , “quit 
cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorif- 
catur, qui locutus est per prophetas — And in the 
Holy Ghost, the Lord and Life-giver, who pro- 
ceedeth from the Father, who is adored and 
glorified together with the Father and the Son, 


who has spoken through the prophets.” 


Apart from the significant appellation “Lord” (7d 
kvpov) the Divinity of the. Holy Ghost is defined in 
this passage indirectly rather than directly. He is not 
_ formally called God, but certain divine attributes are as- 


es cribed to Him; viz., vivification or the giving of life, ado- 


ration and ie such as is due to the Father and the Son, 
and the illumination of the prophets. In ascribing these 
attributes to the Third Person, the Council manifestly 
meant to assert the Consubstantiality of the HolyGhost 
“with the Father and the Son. The hypostatic difference 
is sufficiently indicated by the clause, “ Qui ex Patre pro- 
cedit — Who proceedeth from the Father,’ which com- 
bines the two Scripture texts John XV, 26, and 1 Cor. 
IT, 12.- The reason why the Council of ‘Constantinople 
did not define the Procession of the Holy Ghos st from the 
Son (Filioque), is that the Macedonians had not denied, 
but, on the contrary, maintained it, though they erred in 
holding that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Son as. 
a mere creature (zotypa, factura).*! The schismatic 
Greeks, therefore, have no right to quote this Council 
31 It was not even fitting or ad- Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of 


visable for the Council to mention Catholic Theology, I, 296 sq.) 
the Procession from the Son. (Cfr. 


SUBORDINATIONISM 129 


in favor of their heretical teaching that the Holy Ghost 
proceeds from the Father alone. The Second Council 
of Constantinople, A. D. 381, was not originally a gen- 
eral council, and the fact that it later came to rank 
as such, is due to its subsequent reception by the Uni- 
versal Church rather than to the formal approbation of 
its decrees by Pope Damasus. This Council completed 
the preliminary formulation of the dogma of the Blessed 
Trinity. The so-called Athanasian Creed, which belongs 
to the sixth century, merely restates the ancient teaching 
of the Church in clearer terms and expounds it more at 
length. The most perfect Trinitarian formula, from a 
technical point of view, and also the most comprehensive, 
as we have already intimated, is that drawn up by the 
Eleventh Council of Toledo, A.D. 675.°? The later 
synodical decisions do not concern us here. 

The dogmatic importance of the Constantinopolitan 
Creed, which has been adopted into the liturgy of the 
Mass, cannot be too strongly emphasized, though in the 
light of recent researches this symbol may no longer be > 
regarded as a mere amplification of the Nicene Creed. It 
seems that the Fathers assembled at Constantinople did 
not have before them the Creed of Nicaea, but a different 
symbol which had been adopted by a provincial synod 
of Jerusalem held about the same time.** The schis- 
matic Greeks cherish the so-called Creed of Nicaea-Con- 
stantinople with an almost superstitious reverence as 
their inviolable and sole norm of faith. They call it 
TO tepwtatov ovuBodrov, because it embodies all “twelve 
articles of belief ” ‘ina formula which is as immutable 
as it is definitive. “The Nicene Creed [in the ampli- 

82 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En- pp. 46 sqq., Erlangen and Leipzig 


- Chiridion, nn. 275 sqq. 1896. 
33 Cfr. E. F. K. Miller, Symbolik, 


130 ANTI-TRINITARIAN HERESIES 


fied form believed to have been given to it by the Coun- 
cil of Constantinople],” says W. Gass,** “is the jewel 
_of their faith, a brief but exhaustive précis of their dog- 
matic teaching, Its letters are woven into the vest- 
ments of their highest ecclesiastical dignitaries at Mos- 
cow. Their liturgy culminates in its recitation, and the 
great bell of the Kremlin is rung during its recital, which 
also forms part of the ceremony when the Czar is 
crowned in the presence of his people. It is for this 
reason that the faithful are so familiar with its text, 
which is furthermore constantly recalled to their mind 
by numerous symbolic pictures circulated among them.” 


- READINGS: — On Arianism, Walch, Ketzergeschichte, Vol. II, 
pp. 385 sqq., Leipzig 1764; *Mohler, Athanasius der Grosse und 
die Kirche seiner Zeit im Kampfe mit dem Arianismus, Mainz 
1844; Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person 
Christi, 2nd ed., Vol. I, pp. 806 sqq., Stuttgart 1845 (English 
translation, History of the Development of the Doctrine of the 
Person of Christ, 5 vols., Edinburgh 1861-63); *Kuhn, Christ- 
liche Lehre von der gottlichen Dreieinigkeit, §§ 25 sqq., Tubingen 
1857; Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 8, Romae 1881; J. Mar- 
quardt, Cyrilli Hierosolym. De Contentionibus et Placitis Aria- 
norum Sententia, Braunsberg 1881; Lauchert, Die Lehre des hl. 
Athanasius, Miinchen 1805; Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, 2nd 
ed., London 1900; Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Cen- 
tury, New Impression, London 1901; IpEM, Select Treatises of 
St. Athanasius in Controversy with the Arians, 9th ed. (Vol. 
II, Being an Appendix of Illustrations), London 1903; IpEM, 
Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical, New Ed., pp. 137 sqq., 
London 1895. | 

On modern Antitrinitarianism, or Unitarianism, cfr. Trechsel, 
Die protestantischen Antitrinitarier vor Faustus Socin, Heidel- 
berg 1839-44; F. S. Bock, Historia Antitrinitariorum, maxime 
Socinianismi et Socinianorum, 2 vols., Regiomont. 1774-5; Th. 
Parker, A Discourse of Matters Pertaining to Religion, London 


34 Symbolik der griechischen Kirche, p. 119, Berlin 1872. 


SUBORDINATIONISM 131 


1846; *Burnat, Lelio Socin, Vevey 1804; *Ph. Huppert, Der 
deutsche Protestantismus zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts, 3rd 
ed., Koln 1902; J. H. Allen, Historical Sketch of the Unitarian 
Movement Since the Reformation, New York 1894; R. Wallace, 
Antitrinitarian Biography, 3 vols., London 1850; T. R. Slicer, 
art. “Unitarianism in the United States,” in the Encyclopedia 
Americana, Vol. XV, New York 1904. 


SEs Nie 


THE POSITIVE TRADITION OF THE FIRST FOUR 
CENTURIES 


The Trinitarian belief of the Christian Church 
during the first four centuries is manifested 
partly by her official liturgy and the private 
prayers of the faithful; partly by the doctrinal 
; discussions | of the. Eee whom, for ‘conven- 
jence sake, we may group in two categories, 
vig., Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene. The Coun- 
cil of Nicaea forms a sort of dividing line be- 
tween the two, in so far as before its formal 
ously groping for Fane: terms. and not infre- 
‘quently failed to formulate the teaching e the 
Church with sufficient theological precision." We 
cannot reasonably assume that they déviated 
from this teaching, except in the few cases in 
which the fact is clearly apparent from their 
writings. One of these exceptional cases is that 
of Hippolytus, who is charged with entertain- 
ing Ditheistic views; another, that of Origen, 
whose language on the subject of the Blessed 


ieGire 5). -Chapman,-.O: S, B., in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. X, 
Dp. 450. 
132 


THE OFFICIAL LITURGY 133 


Trinity lays him open to the suspicion of hetero- 
doxy. 


GENERAL READINGS : — *Ruiz, De Trinitate, Lugduni 1625; Wer- 
ner, Geschichte der apologetischen und polemischen Literatur 
der christlichen Theologie, Vol. I, Schaffhausen 1861; Réville, 
Histoire du Dogme de la Divinité de Jésus-Christ, 2nd ed., 
Paris 1876; Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre von der 
Person Christi, 2nd ed., 2 vols., Stuttgart 1845 (translated into 
English under the title History of the Development of the Doc- 
trine of the Person of Christ, Edinburgh 1861-3; 5 vols.; to be 
used with caution) ; Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, and ed., Vols. 
I and II, Freiburg 1892, 1895; Th. de Régnon, Etudes de Thé- 
ologie Positive sur la Sainte Trinité, 4 vols., Paris 1892 sqq.; 
J. Tixeront, History of Dogmas (Engl. tr.), Vol. Tea Stre Louis 
1910; F. J. Hall, The Trinity, pp. 50 sqq., New York IQIO. 


ARTICLE 47 


THE HOLY TRINITY IN THE OFFICIAL LITURGY OF :-THE 
EARLY CHURCH AND THE PRIVATE PRAYERS 
OF THE FAITHFUL 


1. THE ApostLes’ Creep.—The belief of the 
early Christians found its natural utterance 
in the so-called Apostles’ Creed, which is un- 
doubtedly as old as the Church herself. In all 
of its various recensions this symbol voices sim- 
ple faith in the Divine Trinity.2 St. Ireneus,? 
Origen,” and Tertullian” testify to its antiquity. 
The salient passages concerning the Blessed 


2Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En- 4 De Princip., Preface, Migne, P, 
chiridion, nn. 1-14, Ga XG ray sat F 
3 Adv. Haer., I, 10, Migne, P. G., 5 De Praescr., 13, Migne, P. L., 


VII, 550 sq. ; LES 26. 


‘134 “THE POSELIVE TRADITION 


Trinity are as follows: “Credo in Deum [not: 
deos|, Patrem omnipotentem ... et in Iesum 
Christum, Filium eius unicum ... et in Spi- 
ritum Sanctum —I believe in God [not: gods], 
the Father, Almighty, . . . and in Jesus Christ, 
His only Son . . . and in the Holy Ghost.” 

It is safe to regard the Apostles’ Creed as an 
expansion of the form of Baptism; in fact it is 
the baptismal symbolum. The constant practice 
“of the Church in the administration of Baptism 
is of itself convincing proof that the dogma of 
the Divine Trinity always formed part and 
parcel of the original deposit of faith. In the 
Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 
which, according to the late Dr. F. X. Funk, was 
written towards the end of the first century, 
when Nerva ruled the Roman Empire, we read: 
“Baptigate in nomine (cis 76 Bvopa) Patris et Filii 
et Spiritus Sancti — Baptize in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” * 


An interesting counterpart of the baptismal symbolum 
of the early Church is the private profession of faith 


6 Rediscovered by Philotheus Bry- of the Didache, see The Ante-Ni- 
ennios and edited by him in 1883. cene Fathers, American Reprint, 
Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrolo- Vol. VII, pp. 377 sqq., New York 
9g), Pp. 19 sqq.; Tixeront, History 1907. On the Apostles’ Creed cfr. 
of Dogmas, Vol. I, pp. 135 saq.; Baumer, Das Apostolische Glaubens- 
C. Taylor, An Essay on the Doc- bekenninis, seine Geschichte und 
trine of the Didache, Cambridge sein Inhalt, Mainz 1893, and Her- 
1889. bert Thurston, S. J., in the Cath- 

7 Doctrina Duodecim Apostolorum, olic Encyclopedia, Vol. I, pp. 629 
7, 1; ed. Funk, pp. 21 sq., Tubingae 632, who also gives copious biblio- 
1884. For an English translation graphical references, 


THE PRAYERS; OF ‘THE: PATPHPUL Y. 135 


ascribed to St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (d. 270). This 
document tersely, clearly, and completely expounds the 
Catholic teaching on the Blessed Trinity. Defending 
the faith against Paul of Samosata, the Wonder- 
worker professes: “ Unus Deus Pater Verbi viventis. 
. Unus Dominus solus ex solo, Deus ex Deo.... 
Unus Spiritus Sanctus ex Deo subsistentiam (érapéw) 
habens. . . . Trinitas perfecta (rps redeia), quae gloria 
et aeternitate et regno non dividitur nec alienatur — 
There is one God, Father of the Living Word.... 
One Lord, sole from sole, God from God... . One 
Holy Ghost having His being from God....A 
perfect Triad not separated nor dissociated in glory, 
eternity, and reign.” ® Gregory of Nyssa tells us that 
his grandmother Macrina had received this formula 
from Thaumaturgus himself and handed it down to her 
grandchildren in Cappadocia. We are able to obtain 
a glimpse into the popular belief of the early Christians 
from an ancient evening hymn, which concludes with a 
doxology to “ Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” *° 


2. THE ANCIENT CHRISTIAN DoxXOLOGIES.— _.. 


The public and private doxologies, which may 
be looked upon as the common property of the 
faithful in the early Church,** distinctly voice 
belief in the Blessed Trinity. In fact these an- 


8 Migne, P. G., X, 984 saqq. New- 10’EXOdyres ert rov HAlov Siow, 
man’s translation, Tracts Theol. and (Sdvres paws éorepivdy, tuvoumer 
Eccles., pp. 155 Sq. TaTépa Kal vioy Kal ay.ov mvevua 


OeMitenemes Psu Gr, SNISVL wt 107.3% Qcov, Quoted by Routh, Reliqu. 
Gregory of Nyssa’s Life of St. Sacr., 2nd ed., Vol. III, p. 515, 
Gregory Thaumaturgus is, how- Oxon. 1846. 
ever, ‘of little historical value be- 11 For a brief historical account 
cause of its highly legendary char- of them, see Fortescue’s article 
acter.”’ Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, “ Doxology ”’ in the Catholic Ency- 
Patrology, p. 170. clopedia, Vol. V, pp.» 150 sq, 


136 THE POSITIVE FRADITION 


cient hymns, or psalms of praise, seem to be a 
development of the Trinitarian forms of bene- 
diction contained in the New Testament Epistles, 
and they doubtless reflect the publicly professed 
faith of the early Christians, unaffected by ex- 
traneous elements of abortive speculation. The 
coordinative form “Gloria Patri et Filio et 
Spiritut Sancto (or cum Spiritu Sancto) — Glory 
be to God the Father, and to the Son, and to 
the Holy Ghost (or, together with the Holy 
Ghost), and the subordinative form, “Gloria 
Patri per Filium im Spirttu Sancto — Glory be to 
the Father through the Son in the Holy Ghost” 
are probably of equal antiquity, and the asser- 
tion of the Arian historian Philostorgius,” that 
the first-mentioned formula had been introduced 
into the liturgy by Bishop Flavian of Antioch, 
must be received with suspicion. It is certain 
that already Justin Martyr was acquainted with 
it.1* Because the Arians showed a decided pre- 
dilection for the formula “Gloria Patri per Filium 
mM Spiritu Sancto,” ( Ava Tov viod &v TO aylw TVEVHATL ) , 
St. Basil substituted therefor, as equally correct, 
the formula peta Tod viot civ 76 mrveipatt TO ayiw, which 
threw into stronger relief the consubstantiality 
and coequal adorableness of the Son and of the 
Holy Ghost with the Father.” 


12 Hist. Eccles., III, 13, Migne, 14 Cfr. Von der Goltz, Das Gebet 
PP: G., LXV, 502. in der dltesten Christenhett, pp. 135 
18 Apol.; .I, c. 68, Migne, FP, Gy, sqq., Leipzig 1902. 
VI, 427. 


THE CONFESSIONS OF THE MARTYRS 137 


3. THE CONFESSIONS OF THE Martyrs.—The 
confessions of faith that have come down to us 
from the lips of the early martyrs, furnish an- 
other important contribution to the positive Tra- 
dition of the primitive Church concerning the 
Blessed Trinity. Being the formal pronounce- 
ments of holy men and women, made before 
pagan magistrates in the face of cruel death, 
they are rightly held in high esteem. The old- 
est document of this kind which we possess is 
the confession of St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, 
who laid down his life for his faith A. D. 166. 
Its salient passages are as follows: “Verax 
Deus, ... te glorifico per sempiternum et coe- 
lestem pontificem lesum Christum, dilectum F1- 
lium, per quem tibt cum ipso et in Spiritu Sancto 
gloria et nunc et in futura saecula — O truthful 
God, . . . I glorify Thee, through the Eternal 
and Heavenly High Priest, Jesus Christ, [Thy] 
beloved Son, through whom be glory to Thee, 
with Him in the Holy Ghost, both now and 
for the ages to come.” ’® Some martyrs in 
their profession of faith laid special stress on 
the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Thus St. Epi- 
podius of Lyons (+178): “Christum cum 


15 Acta Martyr. Polyc., XIV, 3. the Three, one with another, than 
** Here,” says Newman, ‘‘ the Three is signified in that form, viz., as 
are mentioned, as in the baptismal contained in the words, ‘ through,’ 
form; as many as Three, and no ‘with,’ and ‘in.’” Tracts Theol. 
more than Three, with the expres- and Eccles., p. 1506. — 
sion of a still closer association of 


138 HE. POs VS TRAD IION 


Patre et Spiritu Sancto Deum esse confiteor, 
dignumque est, ut illi [scil. Christo] animam 
meam refundam, qui mihi et creator est et re- 
demptor —I confess Christ to be God, with 
the Father and the Holy Ghost, and it is meet 
that I should give back my soul to Him [1. e., 
Christ], Who is my Creator and Redeemer.” *° 
The holy deacon Vincent, who died a martyr’s 
death, A. D. 304, is reported to have professed 
his faith in these words: “Dominum Christum 
contiteor, Filium altissima Patris, unicr unicum, 
ipsum cum Patre et Spiritu Sancto unum solum 
Deum esse profiteor —I confess the Lord Jesus 
Christ, Son of the most high Father, the Only 
One of the Only One, I confess Him with the 
Father and the Holy Ghost to be the one sole 
God.” ** To St. Euplus of Catania (+ 304) we 
owe one of the most beautiful confessions of faith 
in the Trinity that has come down to us from the 
early days. Itisas follows: “Patrem et Filium 
et Spiritum Sanctum adoro; sanctam Trinitatem 
adoro, praeter quam non est Deus. . . . Sacri- 
fico modo Christo Deo meitpsum. ... Ego sa- 
crifico etimmolo meipsum Patri et Filio et Spiritus 
Sancto —I adore the Father and the Son and the 
Holy Ghost; I adore the holy Trinity, besides 
which there is no God. . . . I now sacrifice my- 


16 Ruinart, Acta Martyr., p. 65, Veronae 1731. 
17 Ruinart, J. c., p. 325. 


THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS 139 


Selr to C@lirist, [who 16} Gods . 47. Ta Sacrifice 
and immolate myself to the Father, and to the 
Son, and to the Holy Ghost.” *® 


READINGS: — On the worship of the Blessed Trinity by the 
early Christians, see Zaccaria, Bibliotheca Ritual., t. I, diss. 2, 
ers, 

On the acts of the martyrs, see *Ad. Harnack, Geschichte der 
altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius, Vol. I, Part 2, pp. 816 
sqq., Leipzig 1893; Semeria, Dogma, Gerarchia e Culto nella 
Chiesa Primitiva, Roma 1902; cfr. also James Bridge in the 
Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IX,. pp. 742 sqq.; H. Delehaye, S. J., 
The Legends of the Saints, London 1897. 


ARTICLE 2 


THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS 


I. THEIR CLEAR AND DEFINITE PROFESSION 
OF FAITH IN THE BLESSED TRINITY.—The Ante- 
Nicene Fathers acknowledged in the One God- 
head three real Persons of coequal power, that 
is to say, not essentially subordinated one to the 
other. Hence it requires no special argument to 
prove that these Fathers professed the Catholic 
dogma of the Trinity. Of course any explicit 
and emphatic assertion, in their writings, of the 
Divinity of Jesus Christ must be of special 
weight. We shall have to confine ourselves to a 
few salient quotations. 


a) Eminent among the “ Apostolic Fathers” is St. 


. 18 For further testimonies, see Martyrerakien und andere Urkun- 
Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 10; den aus der Verfolgungszeit der 
cfr. also Von Gebhardt, Ausgewahlte christlichen Kirche, Berlin 1902, 


10 


140 THE :-POSITIVE; TRADITION 

Ignatius of Antioch, who was exposed to wild beasts 
at Rome under Trajan, some time between A.D. 98 
and 117.19 In his much-discussed Epistles,?? Ignatius 
frequently avers, his faith in the Divinity of Jesus 
Christ, whom he calls “our God.” In combating the 
absurd heresy of the Docetae,?* he insists particularly 
on Christ’s twofold nature, the divine and the human. 
“There is one physician,” writes St. Ignatius, “ fleshly 
and spiritual, generate and ingenerate, God and come 
in flesh, eternal life in death, from Mary and from 
God, first passible and then impassible.” ” 

The truth that there are three Persons in the God- 
head is clearly professed also by Athenagoras (about 
170), who is called ‘“‘the Christian Philosopher of 
Athens.” 22. He says: ‘“ Who would not be astonished 
to hear those called atheists, who speak of the Father 
as God, and the Son as God, and the Holy Ghost; 
showing both their power in unity (rhy év é&doa divapw) 
and their distinction in. order (rnv év tage Siatpeow) ?”’ 4 

St. Irenzeus of Lyons*> deserves special mention, 
because he not infrequently refers to the Holy Ghost 


19 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa- 
trology, pp. 30 sqq.; J. Tixeront, 
History of Dogmas, Vol. I, pp. 121 
sqq.; E. Bruston, Ignace d An- 
tioche, ses Epitres, sa Vie, sa Thé- 
ologie, Paris 1897. 

20 Cfr. Newman, Tracts 
and Eccles., pp. 95-135. 

21 For an account of Docetism, 
see the dogmatic treatise on Chris- 
tology. Properly speaking it is not 
a Christian heresy at all, but 
“rather came from without.” Cfr. 
Arendzen in the Catholic Encyclo- 
pedia, Vol. V, s. v. “ Docetae.” 

22 Epist. ad Eph., VII, 2. New- 
man’s translation, Tracts Theol. and 


Theol. 


Eccles., p. 108 On St. Ignatius’s 
refutation of Docetism see particu- 
larly Tixeront, op. cit., p. 124. 

23 The manuscript tradition of his 
Apology can be traced to the year 
914. Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa- 
trology, pp. 64 sqq., and Peterson in 
the Catholic Encyclopedia, Il, 42 sq. 
An English translation of his works 
in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Amer- 
ican Reprint, Vol. II, pp. 129 sqq., 
New York 1903. 

24 Legat. 10, Migne, P. G., VI, 
909. Newman’s translation, Tracts 
Theol. and Eccles., p. 151. 

25 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa- 
trology, pp. 118 sqq. 


' 


THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS I4I 


as. “Wisdom.” Take, for instance, this - passage :7° 
“ Adest et [scil. Deo Patri] semper Verbum et Sapientia, 
Filius et Spiritus, per quos et in quibus omnia libere et 
sponte fecit — There is present to Him [1. e., God the 
Father] always the Word and the Wisdom, the Son and 
the Spirit, through whom and in whom He has made all 
things freely and of His own accord.” 7" 

Of the many dicta of Clement of Alexandria, which 
could be quoted in support of our thesis, we select but 
one. ‘‘ The Lord,” he says, “apparently despised, but 
in reality adored, the Reconciler, the Saviour, the Meek, 
the Divine Logos, unquestionably true God, measuring 
Himself with the Lord of the Universe [1. e., God the 
Father], because He was His Son, and the Logos was 
ein God: *?* 

b) Of occidental witnesses, let us adduce at least a 
few besides Irenzeus. Tertullian (born about 160) in his 
usual rugged style writes: “ Custodiatur oeconomtiae 
sacramentum, quae unitatem in trinitatem dispomit, tres 
dirigens: Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum. Tres 
autem non statu, sed gradu; nec substantia, sed forma; 
non potestate, sed specie. Unius autem substantiae et 
unius Status et unius potestatis, quia unus Deus, ex quo 
et gradus isti et formae et species, in nomine Patris et 
Filit et Spiritus Sancts deputantur — Let the mystery of 
the dispensation be guarded, which distributes the unity 
into a Trinity, placing in their order the Three, viz., the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; Three not_in con- 
dition, but in degree, not in substance, but in form, not 
in power, but in aspect; but of one substance, and of 
one condition, and of one power, because God is one, 
- 26 Adv. Haer., IV, 20, 1. teaching, see Appendix, infra, pp. 


27 On a recent controversy apro- 2015 SQ. 
pos of St. Ireneus’ Trinitarian 28 Cohori. ad Gent., c. to. 


142 THE POSITIVE TRADITION 


from whom these degrees, and forms, and aspects de- 
rive. 7 

The dogmatic encyclical of Pope Dionysius, which we 
have already mentioned above,*® rejects both extremes, 
Sabellianism as well as Tritheism. “Sabellu impie- 
tas,’ says this holy Pope, “im eo consistit, quod 
dicat Filium esse Patrem et vicissim; hi vero [tritheitae] 
tres deos aliquomodo praedicant, cum in tres hypostases 
invicem alienas, omnino separatas, dividunt sanctam 
unitatem (povdda). Necesse est enim divinum Verbum 
Deo universorum esse unitum et Spiritum Sanctum im 
Deo manere ac vivere.... Credendum est in Deum 
Patrem omnipotentem et in Iesum Christum Filium ews 
et in Spiritum Sanctum — The impiety of Sabellius con- 
sists in this, that he says that the Son is the Father and 
the Father the Son, but they [the Tritheists] in some 
sort preach three Gods, as dividing the Holy Monad into 
three subsistences foreign to each other and utterly sepa- 
rate. For it must needs be that with the God of the 
universe the Divine Word is united, and the Holy Ghost 
must repose and live in God. . We must believe in 
God the Father Almighty, sade in 1 Jesus: Christ His Son, 
and i in the Holy Ghost. fh is 


2. VAGUE Expresstons.—The very confidence 
with which the Fathers of the fourth century de- 
fended the faith against Arius, is sufficient war- 
rant for the orthodoxy of the Ante- ges 
period. 


29 Contr. Prax., Cc. 2. stolischen Vater, Wien 1880; Nirschl, 
30 Supra, p. 122. Cfr. also Bar- Die Theologie des hl. Ignatius, 
denhewer-Shahan, Patrology, p. 224. Mainz 1880; Peterson, article 
31 Quoted by St. Athanasius, De “‘ Apostolic Fathers’ in the Catholic 


Decr. Nicaen. Syn., n. 26. Cfr. . Encyclopedia, Vol. I, pp. 637-640. 
Sprinzl, Die Theologie der apo- 5, 


VAGUE EXPRESSIONS 143 


It has been asserted that Subordinationist, 1. e., Arian- 
izing views with regard to the relations of the Three 
Divine Persons were current “ among the apologists and 
most of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.” * Petavius even 
ventured to affirm that the majority of the Ante-Nicene 
Fathers were not in full accord with the Nicene 
Creed.22 But before the first edition of his work on 
the Trinity (1644-1650) was completed, the great dog- 
matist found himself constrained to moderate this harsh 
judgment. In his “ Praefatio ad Libros de Trinitate” 
he explains the apparent dissent of many of the Ante- 
‘Nicene Fathers as a mere “ modus loquendi.” A num- 
ber of learned theologians ** subsequently undertook the 
defense of these Fathers against so grievous an accusa- 
tion, and they may be said to have acquitted themselves 
on the whole victoriously. It must be admitted, how- 
ever, that the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, 
composed at a time when dogmatic terminology still lacked 
that precision which was imparted to it by the Nicene 
Creed, expressed themselves “with an ~unsuspicious yet 
reverent explicitness,” °° which is apt to arouse the sus- 
picion of heresy. But whenever such ambiguous terms 
_and phrases admit of a Catholic interpretation, the rules 
‘of Patristic hermeneutics compel us to prefer the ortho- 
| dox to the heretical sense, so long as the latter is not 
_ positively established. It is almost impossible to imagine 
that such a brilliant phalanx of theologians as Justin, 
Irenzeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, etc., should 
have lapsed into material heresy in regard to a fun- 
damental dogma of the Christian faith. “In such a 


32 Cfr. Kuhn, Christl. Lehre von 34 E. g., Thomassin, Bossuet, Ma- 
der hl. Dreicinigkett, pp. 107 sqq., ranus, Lumper, Méhler, Franzelin, 

- Tubingen 1857. Schwane, Régnon, etc. 
33 Cir. De Trinitate, I, 3-5. (Pe- 35 Newman, The Arians of the 


tavius died in 1652.) Fourth Century, p. 166. 


144 THE POSITIVE TRADITION 
fundamental dogma, such an error in such quarters 
would be incompatible with the infallibility of the 
Church. 3:34 oe a matter of fact, upon closer scrutiny 
most of the “incorrect and unadvisable terms and 
statements in some of the early Fathers,” 37 can be 
offset by parallel texts from the same Fathers which 
are clearly and unmistakably orthodox. It must be ad- 
mitted, however, that prior to the Nicene Council the 
dogmatic formulation of the mystery of the Blessed Trin- 
ity was still in process of development, and theological 
speculation on the subject of the Logos, influenced by 
Platonism and Stoicism, frequently went astray and un- 
consciously scattered the seeds of future heresies. 


Cardinal Franzelin reduces the incorrect and 
unadvisable terms and statements found in the 
early Fathers on the subject of the Blessed T'rin- 
ity to four categories, which we will briefly re- 
view. 


a) By insisting too strongly on the character of the 
Father as the source and principle of the two. other 
‘Persons, some Ante-Nicene writers created the impres- 
sion that they held the Son to be God in a less strict 
sense than the Father,—as it were “God in the second 
place”; and the Holy Ghost, “ God in the third place.” 
Cas St Justin writes that the Son is “ in the second 


36 Wilhelm-Scannell, Manual of 
Dogmatic Theology, I, 288. 


. by the necessities of contro- 
versies of a later date. ... Those 


37 Newman, ‘“‘ Causes of the Rise 
and Success of Arianism,” in 
Tracts Theological and Ecclesiasti- 
cal, p. 208.—In The Arians of the 
Fourth Century (p. 164) Newman 
says of “‘ the Ante-Nicene language ” 
that it ‘‘ was spoken from the 
heart ”’ and must not be ‘‘ measured 


early teachers have been made to 
appear technical, when in fact they 
have only been reduced to a system; 
just as in literature what is com- 
posed freely, is afterwards subjected 
to the rules of grammarians and 
critics.” (See also op. cit., pp. 179 
sqq.) 


VAGUE EXPRESSIONS 145 


place (& Sdevrépa xoeg) ” and the Holy Ghost “in the 
third order (ev tpity Tage).” 3 Tertullian, on the other 
hand, upon whom fell the task of coining a Latin ter- 
minology, which he accomplished with rare ability, calls 
the Father “ the totality of substance (tota substantia) ,” 

while he refers to the Son asia derived from the whole 
substance (derivatio totius et Porto. 8° 

“Tn connection herewith a few of the Fathers reserve 
a name “Deus super omnia” (God above all things), 
_or “Very God”* _to the Father, while they speak of 

a: Son as @eds é ®@ecov, or simply @eds without the 
article Novatian (A.D. 250), who in his otherwise 
excellent work on the Trinity endeavored to harmonize 
the doctrine of the Divinity of the Son with that of the 
unity of the Godhead, misconceives the Consubstantiality 
of Father and Son.*? 

It is plain that all these utterances, and a number of 
others which could be cited from Ante-Nicene writings, 
can be interpreted in an Arian sense; but it is equally 
certain that they must not be thus Tree rere So long 
as the general teaching of any writer is such that the 
true Catholic doctrine may be reasonably presumed to 
underly an occasional incorrect expression, we have no 
right to accuse him of favoring heretical tenets. Now, 
it is an article of faith that the Father, as the First 
Person of the Blessed Trinity, has“ His Divine Nature 
from Himself,** whereas the Logos-Son and the Holy 
Ghost have the same numerical Divine Nature by imma- 
nent procession from the Father. It is this idea the 


"38. polit c. aan Oday "glikircuuchen Literatur, II, 56s, 
39 Contr. Prax., 9. Freiburg 1903; L. Duchesne, Early 
40‘O Oceds = avroéecs. History of the Christian Church, 
41 Cfr. Newman, The Arians of (Engl. tr.), Vol. I, pp. 235 sq. 

the Fourth Ceniury, pp. 163 sqq. ager Avapxos, avrddeos, apxy THs 


42 Cfr. Bardenhewer, Geschichte  apyijs, 


146 THE POSITIVE TRADITION 
Fathers in their crude language wished to express.‘ 
b) There are certain other Patristic texts which seem 
to rieticoetl active ‘generation on the part of the Father 
as “voluntary,” as if the Father could be conceived 
without the Son. This might easily suggest the heret- 
ical conclusion that the Son is a mere creature of the 
Father, or at most a God of inferior rank. But all 


‘such utterances must be read in the light of the thesis 
which their respective authors were then and there de- 


fending against their heterodox opponents. When the 
exigencies of the conflict made it necessary to refute 


.the error that the process of divine Generation implied 


external compulsion, or blind necessity, or corporeal 


division, the Fathers rightly insisted that “ Pater volun- 
tate seu voluntarie eee Filium.— The Father begot 
the Son voluntarily.” But they did not employ ‘ “volun- 
tarie”’ in the sense of “ liberé.’ ~ What a meant was 
that the Father begot His Divine Son as “ willingly ” 

as He is the infinite God. Later on, when the Arians 
and Eunomians began. to_propagate the heretical error 
that the Son is a creature, the product of a free act 
of creation on the part of the Father, 45 the Patristic_ 


44 On the orthodoxy of Tertul- 
lian, see Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. 


1905 end 5. Vixeront! History of 
Dogmas, Vol. I, pp. 310 sqq. On 


I, § x11, n. 835 sqq., and Barden- 
hewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen 
Literatur, II, 387 sq. Bardenhewer’s 
opinion on this head is thus sum- 
marized in his Patrology (English 
edition by Shahan, p. 185): ‘‘In 
his defence of the personal distinc- 
tion between the Father and the 
Son he [Tertullian] does not, ap- 
parently, avoid a certain Subordi- 
nationism. Nevertheless in many 
very clear expressions and turns of 
thought he almost forestalls the Ni- 
cene Creed.” Cfr. also A. d’Alés, 
La Théologie de Tertullien, Paris 


flaws external to Himself, 
|_not voluntary, and that, if on the 
_ other hand it was voluntary, the 


the Trinitarian teaching of St. Jus- 
tin Martyr, see A. L. Feder, S. 
J., Justins des Martyrers Lehre von 
Jesus Christus dem Messias, Frei- 
burg 1906. 

45 ‘It was one of the first and 
principal interrogations put to the 
Catholics by their Arian opponents, 
whether the Generation of the Son 
was_ voluntary or not on the part 
of the Father; their dilemma being, 
that Almighty God was subject to 
if it were 


VAGUE EXPRESSIONS 147 


)writers met the new difficulty by the declaration that 


a rT 


the Procession of the Son from the Father is as nec- 


se aperinae 


essary as the vital process in the bosom of the God- 


head.” ; fs 

c) A further source of misunderstanding is the 
Patristic teaching that the Logos was begotten for a 
very definite purpose, namely, to serve as the instrument 
of creation. This seems to place the Son on a plane 
of undue subordination to the Father. Those who held 
this view accentuated it by making a distinction be- 
tween the Adyos évOuderos and the Adyos TpopopiKos. a eee 
view of the Logos | as Endiathetic and as Prophoric,— 
as the Word conceived and the Word. uttered, the Word 
mental and the Word active and effectual... came 
from tl the Stoics, and is found in Philo.” *® With cer- 
tain restrictions it admits of an orthodox interpretation, 
provided that those who employ the words do not dis- 


pute that the ministerial relation of the Logos, though 
subordinate with regard to origin, is truly divine, and 
that the Prophoric Word does not lose His Divine Na- 


ture and Sonship in consequence of the Creation and 
the Incarnation, but retains both in unaltered identity 
ae was in the nehe: of things 


created.” Newman, The~Arians of 
the Fourth Century, p. 196. 


dise Lost,’ which, as far as the 
very words go, is conformable both 
to Scripture and the writings of the 


46 Newman, Select Treatises of St. 
Athanasius, II, 340. ‘* Philo,” he 
says in another place, ‘‘ associating 
it [the doctrine of the Trinity] with 
Platonic notions as well as words, 
developed its lineaments with so 
rude and hasty a hand, as to sep- 
arate the idea of the Divine Word 
from that of the Eternal God; and 
so perhaps to prepare the way for 
Arianism,’? And in a foot-note he 
ijlustrates this observation ‘‘ by the 
theological language of the ‘ Para- 


early Fathers, but becomes offensive 
as being dwelt upon as if it were 
literal, not figurative. It is scrip- 
tural to say that the Son went forth 
from the Father to create the 
worlds; but when this is made the 
basis of a scene or pageant, it bor- 
ders on Arianism. Milton has made 
Allegory, or the Economy, real.” 
(The Arians of the Fourth Century, 
p. 93. Cfr. also pp. 199 sq. of the 
same work.) 


148 THE POSITIVE TRADITION 


with the Endiathetic Word. St. Irenzus, in demon- 
strating against the Gnostics that God ‘did not need to 
employ angels in creating the universe, extols nes min- 
istry of the Son and aT the Holy Ghost” as a divine 
ministry to which “all angels are subject,” and signifi- 
cantly adds: “ Hic Pater... fecit ea per semetipsum, 
hoc est per Verbum et Sapientiam suam— The Father 
made these things by Himself, that is, by His Word 
and Wisdom.” ** St, Theophilus of Antioch (about 
180), was, so far as we know, the first Christian theo- 
logian who did not hesitate to use the terms Adyos 
evdidberos and rpodopixds.*® But his use of them, though 
incautious, is quite orthodox, as appears from the sub- 
joined passage in the second of his three books Ad 
Autolycum: “Cum voluit Deus ea facere, quae statuerat, 
hoc Verbum genuit prolatitium (apodopixdy), primogeni- 
tum omnis creaturae, non ita tamen, ut Verbo vacuus 
fieret, sed ut Verbum gigneret et cum suo Verbo semper 
versaretur — When God purposed to make all that He 
had deliberated on, He begat this Word _as external to 
Him, being the First- born antecedent to the whole cre- 
ation; not, however, Himself losing the Word [that is, 
the Internal], but begetting it, and yet everlastingly 
communing with it.”*° Two other representatives of 
the Ante-Nicene period, Hippolytus and Tertullian, 
boldly venture a step farther and describe the~intra- 
divine yévjo.s as a mere conception, and the temporal 
yémois, which manifests itself ad extra, as the birth of 
“the Logos, claiming that the full Sonship of the Logos 
did not begin until He His temporal birth. This is 


47 Adv. Haeres., Il, 30. Ireneus (Ch ae Oni NV G mleoG: 
48 The use of the word ‘‘ Wis- “ Spiritus veritatis ’’). 
dom” for ‘ Holy Ghost” is also 49 Ad Autol. II, 22. Newman’s 


peculiar to Theophilus and to St. translation; cfr. The Arians of the 
Fourth Century, p. 200. 


INCAUTIOUS ANTE-NICENE WRITERS | 149 


| no doubt speculation gone astray, but it does not trench 
on dogma, though Hippolytus, as we have already re- 
Eres did incur a degree of blame for his ditheistic 
: vagaries. Cea 
~ d) The fourth group of incautious Ante-Nicene ex- 
pressions culminates in the teaching that the Father 
alone is by His very Nature, i. e., because of His im- 
~mensity,— invisible, while the Son (and this is true of the 
Holy Ghost also) can manifest Himself visibly, and 
has in matter of fact so manifested Himself in the Old 
Testament theophanies and in the Incarnation. Peta- 
vius held that this theory necessarily entails the he- 
retical inference that the Son is inferior to the Father. 
But we cannot share this view. It may be that the 
Fathers and ecclesiastical writers in question ®° did not 
_ distinguish sharply enough between “ apparition ” (ap- 
paritio) and “ mission” (imissio). But there can be no 
doubt that in speaking as they did they had in view 
_ only “mission.” For while the.First. Person of the 
~~ Divine Trinity, who proceeds from none, can be..con- 
ceived only as “sending,” and never as “sent,” the dis- 
tinctive personal character of the Logos-Son supplies a 
congruous reason why He should be “sent” into the 
world by the Father, from whom He proceeds by eter- 
nal generation. The writers with whom we are here 
concerned do not ascribe the attribute of immensity or 
immeasurableness exclusively to the First Person of the 
Trinity ; they merely observe that the Logos in His visible 
manifestation (1. e., according to His humanity), is not 
immense nor immeasurable. 


3. SOME ANTE-NICENE WRITERS WHOSE OR- 
THODOXY REMAINS DouBstTFuL.—Though, as we 


50 Justin, Ireneus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, et al. 


150 THE POSITIVE TRADITION 


have seen, the evidence at hand does not warrant 
a summary indictment of the Ante-Nicene Fath- 
ers and ecclesiastical writers, all of them cannot 
be successfully cleared of the charge of heresy. 


Some modern writers hold that even the Didache, or 
“Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” the oldest literary 
monument of Christian antiquity outside of the New 
Testament canon, must be the work of an Ebionitic or 
Monarchianistic writer, because it contains no formal 
profession of faith in the Divinity of Jesus Christ and 
the Atonement.** But Funk has conclusively shown in 
the “Prolegomena” to his edition of this much-dis- 
cussed work,®® that the Didache ranks Christ higher than 
a mere man. . 

It is somewhat more difficult to disprove the recent 
charge that Hermas, the author of The Shepherd, 
“the longest and for form and contents the most 
remarkable of the writings of the so-called Apostolic 
Fathers,” °* constantly identifies the Person of the 
Son with that. of the Holy Ghost.°* Though various 
attempts have been made to save the orthodoxy of 
the “ Shepherd,” ** we can hardly escape the conclusion 
that he “bases the difference between the Son and the 
Holy Ghost on the fact of thé Incarnation, the Son of 
God in His pre- “existence being none other than the 


51 See id patsy in phe; Theolo- 
gische Quartalschrift of Tiibingen, 
1884, pp. 581 saa. 

52P. XXXIX, Tubingae 1887. 

53 Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, 
p- 38. The Shepherd was composed 
about A.D. 150. On its dogmatic 
teaching cfr. Tixeront, History of 
Dogmas, Vol. I, pp. 114 sqq. 

54E.g9.: “I [i. e., the Shepherd] 


will show thee all things which the 
Holy Ghost (7d mvevua 7d dytov) 
has shown thee, who spoke to thee 
in the figure of the Church; for that 
Spirit is the Son of God (éxeivo yap 
TO mvevua 6 vids TOU Beod éoriy).” 
(Pastor Hermae, Sim. IX, I, 1.) 

55 Among others by Briill and R, 
Seeberg. 


INCAUTIOUS ANTE-NICENE WRITERS 151 


Holy Ghost.” ®* There is some doubt as to whether 
Hermas is guilty of identifying the Holy Ghost, or the 
Son of God respectively, with the Archangel Michael, as 
charged by Funk. True, the “Shepherd” attributes 
identical functions to the Holy Ghost and the Arch- 
angel Michael, but he draws a distinction between them 
in regard to rank.” 

St. Hippolytus of Rome, the rival of Pope St. Callis- 
tus (A.D. 217-222), and one of the first antipopes 
known to history, in his controversies with Noétus and 
/Sabellius championed Ditheistic views and even went so 
far as to refer to the Logos as 6eds yevyrés,® which 
caused Callistus to accuse him and his followers of be- 
ing Ditheists: “ AiOeot éore.”’ °° Hippolytus retorted 
with the counter-charge of Modalism, saying that Callis- 
tus “ falls sometimes into the error of Sabellius, and 
sometimes into that of Theodotus,’— which, says Bar- 
denhewer, “can only mean that on the one hand Callis- 
tus maintained the equality and unity of nature in the 
Father and the Son, without denying, as did Sabellius, 
the distinction of Persons; and on the other maintained 
the perfect humanity of the Redeemer, without denying 
his divinity, as did Theodotus.” % 

Origen’s Trinitarian teaching is rather enigmatic. In 
the mind of this learned writer the Hellene seems to 
wrestle with the Christian, the pagan philosopher with the 

56 Bardenhewer, Geschichte der II, 398 sq. Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: 
altkirchlichen Literatur, I, 577, Frei- His Knowability, Essence, and At- 
burg 1902. tributes, pp. 114 sq. 

57 Cfr. Bardenhewer, op. cit. 59 Philos., IX, 12. Cfr. Duchesne, 

68 Contr. Noét., c. 10; Philos., X, Early History of the Christian 
33- On the difference between ‘ye- Church, Vol. I, pp. 212 saqq. 


yntoy and yevynror, cfr. Newman, 60 Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pairology, 
Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, p. 210. 


152 THE yPOSIFIVE cTRADITION 


Catholic believer. St. Jerome © accuses him of Arianism, 
and the brilliant defense of Origen’s orthodoxy by Pam- 
philus, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and Eusebius, and among 
modern writers by Vincenzi, has not fully dispelled this 
indictment. In his writings, Origen appears in a twofold 
role. Whenever he speaks as a simple witness to ecclesi- 
astical Tradition, he voices the Catholic truth; ° but when 
he speaks as a philosopher endeavoring to clear tp the 
mysteries of the faith, he does not scruple to represent 
the Son of God as a xricua ®eod and as a “ second 
God” (Sevrepos @eds)— a name which Plato had applied 
to the world as fashioned by the Demiurge. To do full 
justice to Origen’s position, it will be well to distinguish, 
as Athanasius does,*? between what he states Oerixas, 
as a witness to Tradition, and what he writes lols 
as a philosopher “ inquiring and exercising himself,” 

Newman renders the term.** The Tractatus Beenie 
de Libris SS. Scripturarum, consisting of twenty homi- 
lies which have reached us in an Orleans manuscript 
of the tenth, and in another of St. Omer belonging to 
the twelfth century, discovered and edited by Batiffol 
in 1900, are not the work of Origen nor of Nova- 
tian. The well-developed Trinitarian terminology of 
these homilies clearly indicates a Post-Nicene composi- 
tion. Weyman has shown that the Latin text is orig- 
inal, but the true author has not yet been ascertained.® 


61 Ep. 94 ad Avit. qui Filius est et omnia est, quae 
62 Cfr. In Ioa., tr. 2, abud Migne, Pater?” 
P. G., XIV, 128: “ Didiciumus cre- 63 De Decret. Nicaen. Syn., 27. 
dere (in Deo) esse tres hypostases: 64 Select Treatises of St. Athana- 
Patrem et Filium et Spirittum Sanc- sius, I, 48. 
tum.” In Ep. ad .Rom., NII, 5, 65 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa- 


(apud Migne, 1. c., 1115) he says: trology, p. 222; J. Tixeront, History 
* Quomodo enim inferior dici potest, of Dogmas (English tr.), Vol. 1, 
pp. 261 sqq., St. Louis 1gr1o. 


NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS 153 


READINGS: — On the Trinitarian teaching of the Ante-Nicene 
Fathers, see especially *Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 10-11, 
Romae 1881; Heinrich, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. IV, §§ 
231-232, Mainz 1885; Kuhn, Christliche Lehre von der hl. 
Dreteingkeit, §§ 12-18, Tubingen 1857; *Duchesne, Les Témoins 
Anténicéens du Dogme de la Trinité, Paris 1882; Petavius, De 
Trinitate, lib. I, c. 3-5, and the “ Praefatio”; Thomassin, De 
Trimtate, c. 37-47; *Prud. Maranus, De Divinitate Domini 
Nostri Jesu Christi, ll. 2-4; B. Jungmann, Dissertationes Selectae 
in Historiam Ecclesiasticam, Vol. I, pp. 358 sqq., Ratisbonae 
1880; B. Heurtier, Le Dogme de la Trinité dans l’Epitre de St. 
Clément de Rome et le Pasteur d’Hermas, Lyon 1900; J. Tix- 
eront, History of Dogmas, English tr., Vol. I, St. Louis 1910; 
E. Krebs, Der Logos als Heiland im ersten Jahrhundert. Ein 
religions- und dogmengeschichtlicher Beitrag zur Erlosungslehre, 
Freiburg 1910; F. Diekamp, Uber den Ursprung des Trinitats- 
bekenntnisses, Miinster 1910. 


ARTICLE 3 


THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS 


1. THE Docmatic TEACHING OF THE FATHERS 
AGAINST ARIUS AND Macreponius.—a) The 
sensation caused throughout Christendom by the 
first appearance of the Arian heresy can be ex- 
plained only on the assumption that the truth 
had been in quiet possession for three full cen- 
turies. The Bishop of Alexandria, Alexander, 
at a synod held in his episcopal city about the 
year 320, excommunicated Arius. He explained 
the motives for this step in a lengthy letter 
to Bishop Alexander of Constantinople. “Quis 
unquam talia audivit?” he said among other 
things, “aut quis nunc audiens non obstupescat 


154 THE .POSITIVE- TRADITION 


et aures obstruat, ut ne talium verborum sordes 
auditum contaminent?— Who ever yet heard 
such language? and who that hears it now, 
but is shocked and stops his ears, that its foul- 
ness should not enter into them?’ ** This ut- 
terance clearly proves that the heresy of Arius, 
which attacked the very foundations of the dogma 
of the Divine Trinity, by asserting that the Log- 
os-Son (Christ) is a mere creature, was at the 
beginning of the fourth century regarded as an 
intolerable innovation. St. Athanasius himself 
took a leading part in the Arian controversies 
which for many years shook the entire Orient 
and even made their evil effects felt among the 
Germanic nations of the Western world, espe- 
cially among the Vandals in Africa. Athanasius 
was Bishop of Alexandria and is deservedly 
called ‘‘the Great.” He was ready to give up 
his life in defense of the Catholic truth that the 
Son is eternally begotten from the substance of 
the Father, and is consubstantial with Him, as 
defined by the Council of Nicaea. 

b) When (about 360) Macedonius began to 
undermine that other pillar of the dogma of the 
Blessed Trinity, vizg.: the Divinity and Consub- 
stantiality of the Holy Ghost, Athanasius again 
appeared in the arena and denounced his teach- 


66 Opera Athanas., tom. I, p. 398, tises of St. Athanasius, Vol. I, pe 
Paris 1689; Newman, Select Trea- 5, 9th ed., London 1903. 


tecoeaa AND POST-NICENE FATHERS 155 


ing as “impious” and “unscriptural.” 7 “It is 
impious,” he said, “to call the Holy Ghost created 
or made (xrordv 7} momrdv), seeing that both the 
Old and the New Testament connumerate and 
glorify Him with the Father and the Son, be- 
cause He is of the same Divinity (ovvapOpet xai 
St. Athanasius 
found powerful allies in the “three Cappado- 
cians,” Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of 
Nyssa, and particularly St. Basil, who in his 
work On the Holy Spirit ** quotes a number of 
older writers in confirmation of the ecclesiastical 
Tradition.® 

Honorable mention must also be accorded to 
St. Amphilochius, who was consecrated Bishop 
of Tconium, A, D. 374, and later became metro- 
politan of Lycaonia, (+ after 3094): In. the 
name of a synod of his Lycaonian suffragans he 
published a magnificent letter on the Divinity of 
the Holy Ghost.” 

To Didymus the Blind, of Alexandria, “one 


dogdle, Sidt. tHS abrns OedrnTds éorw ),” : 


67 Cfr. St. Athanasius, De Theae 
natione Det Verbi, reprinted in 
Migne, P. G., XXVI, 998. 

68 “It has always been the stand- 
ard work on the subject” (Fortes- 
cue, The Greek Fathers, p. 81, Lon- 
don 1908), eespite the reproach of 
“Economy ”? which attaches to it, 
because St. Basil avoided (as he 
~ himself admits) calling the ‘Holy 
~ Ghost God: 

69 A picturesque account of the 
lives of St. Gregory of Nazianzus 


ll 


po St. Basil will be found in A. 


Fortescue, The Greek Fathers, Lon- 
don 1908. For their works and an 
account of their teaching, as also of 
that of St. Gregory of Nyssa, cfr. 
Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 
286 sqq-, pp. 295 sqq., and pp. 274 
sqq. Note especially the passage 
from St. Gregory Nazianzen on the 
Trinity, ibid., p. 291. 

70 Epistola Synod. contr. Pneuma- 
tomachos. 


156 THE POSIT IVI ARADITION 


of the most notable men of an age that abounded 
in great personalities,’ (-++ about 395) we owe, 
besides an important work On the Trinity (rept 
zpiddos ), a lucid treatise entitled De Spiritu Sancto, 
which has reached us only in the sixty-three brief 
chapters of St. Jerome’s Latin translation,”* and 
which is indeed, as Bardenhewer says, “one of 
the best of its kind in Christian antiquity.” ™ 

The most eminent defenders of the dogma in 
the West were St. Ambrose‘* and St. Augus- 
tine,"* who was the first to attempt a systematic 
exposition of the mystery of the Divine Trinity. 
His famous work On the Trinity became the 
starting-point of the Trinitarian speculations of 
medieval Scholasticism. St. Anselm adopted 
Augustine’s profound considerations in his 
Monologium, whence they found their way into 
the Liber Sententiarum of Peter Lombard, and 
through this channel into the numerous the- 
ological Suwmmae, among which that of St. 
Thomas Aquinas has ever held the place of 
honor.” 

2. Patristic PoLtemics.—The method which 
the Fathers chose to refute the Scriptural objec- 
tions raised by the Arians and Semi-Arians fur- 
nishes a valuable argument for the purity and 


71 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa- 73 De Spiritu Sancto ad Gratia- 
trology, pp. 307 sqq. num Augustum, in three books. 

72 Ibid., p. 308. On Didymus the 74 De Trinitate. 
Blind cfr. Bardy, Didyme lAveugle, 75 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 1a, 


Paris 1910. qu. 27 sqq. 


NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS = 157 


imperishable freshness of the ecclesiastical Tra- 
dition touching the dogma of the Blessed Trinity. 


a) Prov. VIII, 22 reads: “Dominus possedit me in 
initio viarum suarum — The Lord possessed me in the 
beginning of his ways.” The Septuagint has: éxrié pe 
épyyv 68ev aitov. This text was considered by the Arians 
as the weak spot in the Catholic armor. Catholics did 
not deny that the passage referred to the Logos, and the 
Arian contention that the Septuagint offered sufficient 
warrant for taking Christ to be xricwa @cov — a creature 
of God — seemed well founded. It was a Gordian knot, 
which the Fathers, each in his own way, tried hard 
to unravel. Some suggested that the Septuagint text 
had been practiced upon by the Arians. Others referred 
the difficult passage to our Lord’s sacred Humanity, 
while others again thought it applied to His Divinity. 
On one point, however, all were unanimously agreed, viz., 
in holding that Christ was God and the Second Person 
of the Divine Trinity. Those among the Fathers who 
(wrongly) believed that éxrwe was an Arian forgery for 
éxtyoe = extnoato (from xtdouar—=acquiro, possideo) 
were guided by the thought that, since Eve said after 
the birth of Cain: “ Possedi (3?) from 13? = possedit) 
hominem per Deum—JI have gotten a man through 
God,” ™ the Hebrew text of Proverbs must have read, 
as our Latin Vulgate reads: “Dominus possedit me 
(2p, 2% €., generatione habet me; eéxrynoe Or éxrnoaro 
pe). This interpretation was favored by Epiphanius, 
Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Jerome. Most of the 
other Fathers, however, notably Athanasius and Nazian- 
zen, in view of a parallel passage in Ecclesiasticus,’” 


J 


76 (Gens Viol. tio et ante saecula creata (€xrice) 
77 Ecclus, XXIV, 14: “Ab int-' 9 sum.” 


158 | THE POSTIVE TRADITION 


referred Prov. VIII, 22 to the Humanity of Christ and 
interpreted it thus: ‘The Lord created me in my 
human nature as the beginning [épy) = principle] of 
his ways.’’** There was a third group of Fathers who 
did not hesitate to apply Prov. VIII, 22 to Christ’s Di- 
vine Nature. They interpreted the verb xrifew gener- 
ically as producere = gignere,” or looked upon it as a 
drastic term calculated to throw into relief the hypo- 
static self-existence of the Logos in contradistinction to 
the Father.8° The dogma of the Divinity of Christ, 
and consequently that of the Blessed Trinity, was safe- 
guarded in any event.*? 

The New Testament piéce de resistance of the Arian 
heretics was Christ’s own declaration, recorded in John 
XIV, 28: “Pater maior me est—The Father is 
greater than I.” Here, they alleged, Christ Himself 
attests His subordination to the Father. This objection, 
too, was met differently by different Fathers. While 
the Latins were inclined to limit John XIV, 28 to 
Christ’s Humanity (in which hypothesis the Arian argu- 
ment simply collapsed), most of the Greek Fathers, 
notably Athanasius and Nazianzen, preferred the some- 
what strained assumption that Christ is stibject to the 
by virtue of His being the see Person. eres 
dvapxos) , is at the same time the principle of the Son, 
who must therefore be conceived essentially as “ Deus 
de Deo.’ According to this theory the expression 
“maior me” signifies Christ’s immanent succession with 


78 For further details, see Peta- 81 On these various interpreta- 
vius, De Trinitate, II, 1, 3. tions, cfr. especially Ruiz, De Trini- 
79 Thus St. Ephrem. tate, disp. 96; also St. Thomas, S. 


80 This was the opinion of St. iheolk. ta, (ues ty, ,arte 3. 
Hilary. 


NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS | 159 


| regard to origin in the Godhead, not a difference in 
/rank or power. 

The difficulty based on Christ’s primogeniture was 
tersely and effectively refuted by St. Ambrose: “ Legi- 
mus primogenitum, legimus unigenitum: primogenitus, 
quia nemo ante ipsum; unigenitus, quia nemo post ipsum 
— We read ‘the First-born,’ and we read ‘the Only- 
begotten’: He is the First-born, because there was no 
one before Him; He is the Only-begotten, because there 
is no one after Him.” * 

b) Besides a large number of philosophical fallacies, 
the Macedonians marshalled against the dogma of the 
Divinity of the Holy Ghost a series of Scriptural texts, 
which were loyally and learnedly restored to their true 
meaning by the Fathers. From Rom. VIII, 26: “Jpse 
Spiritus postulat pro nobis gemitibus inenarrabilibus — 
The Spirit himself asketh for us with unspeakable 
groanings,” these heretics concluded: One who prays 
to God with unspeakable groanings cannot be Himself 
God; therefore the Holy Ghost is a mere creature. 
Without pointing to the evident anthropomorphism in 
this text, St. Augustine refutes the false interpretation 
of the Macedonians by the simple remark: “ Dictum 
est ‘interpellat, quia interpellare nos facit nobisque 
interpellandi et gemendi inspirat affectum— The Bible 
says, the Spirit intercedes for us, because He makes 
us intercede and puts it into our hearts to intercede 
and groan.” §* 1 Cor. VIII, 6, where, strangely enough, 
the name of the Holy Ghost does not occur at all, 
was cited by the Pneumatomachians in favor of their 


82 Ambros., De Fide, I, 7. Cfr. by Kleutgen, De Ipso Deo, pp. 458 
Newman, Tracts Theological and Ec- sqq., Ratisbonae 1881; cfr. also 
-clesiastical, pp. 199 sqq., new ed., Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, and 
London 1895. Other Arian difficul- ed., Vol. II, § 12, Freiburg 1895. 
ties of less importance are canvassed 83 Aug., Ep., 194 (al. 105), n. 6. 


160 THE POSITIVE TRADITION 


heretical tenet that the Third Person is a creature and 
therefore cannot be God. But, as St. Athanasius effec- 
tively retorted: ‘“ The Holy and Blessed Trinity is so 
indivisibly united with itself, that when the Father is 
named, His Logos is included, and in the Logos also the 
Spirit. And when the Son is named, the Father is in 
the Son, nor is the Spirit outsidé the Logos, inasmuch 
as there is but one grace, which is perfected out of the 
Father, through the Son, in the Holy Ghost.” 84 


READINGS : — Petavius, De Trinitate, I, 7 sqq.; George Bull, 
Defensio Fidei Nicaenae (against Petavius, I, 3 sqq.), Oxon. 
1685 (On Bull’s work and its unmerited reputation, cfr. Hunter. 
Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. Il, pp. 206 sq.) ; *Mohler, 
Athanasius der Grosse, 2nd ed., Vol. I, pp. 1-116, Mainz 1844; 
Hergenrother, Die Lehre von der gittlichen Dreieinigkeit nach 
Gregor von Nazianzg, Ratisbon 1850; Atzberger, Die Logos- 
lehre des hl. Athanasius, Freiburg 1880; A. Beck, Die Trinitéts- 
lehre des hl. Hilarius von Poitiers, Mainz 1903; J. Bilz, Die 
Trinitatslehre des hl. Johannes von Damaskus, Paderborn 1909. 

On the apologetical aspects of the subject, see Hettinger, 
Apologie des Christentums, 9th ed., Vol. III, Freiburg 1907. 


S24 Ep. ft ad Serap. 14... For fur- mann, Die Gottheit des Hl. Geistes 
ther information on this aspect of nach den griechischen Vitern des 
the matter, see Kleutgen, De Ipso vierten Jahrhunderts, Freiburg 1901. 
Deo, pp. 490 sqq., and Th. Scher- 


CHAPTER III 


THE PRINCIPLE OF THE BLESSED TRINITY, OR THE 
DOCTRINE OF THE IMMANENT PROCES- 
SIONS IN THE GODHEAD 


Divine Revelation tells us that there are Three 
Persons in the Godhead. It also points out the 
cause of this difference, vig.: the fact of the Di- 
vine Processions. 

It is these Processions that properly constitute 
the mystery of the Blessed Trinity and furnish 
the basis for the distinction of three real Hy- 


tion. of. one Sine Person from another.’ 
There are two such Processions, vig., Gener- 
ation ( generatio, ee) and SA Enos ee 


TVEVT ts ye 


We shall treat them separately. 


161 


SECIION?4 


THE PROCESSION OF THE SON FROM THE FATHER 
BY GENERATION 


I. THE ScripruRAL ARGUMENT.—The Ni- 
cene Council having incorporated the notion of 
yevmors into the dogmatic definition of the Blessed 
Trinity, there can be no doubt that Christ's gen- 
eration by the Father is as much an article of 
faith as His Divine Sonship. This can be dem- 
onstrated from Holy Scripture in a twofold man- 
ner. 


a) Indirectly, by arguing from the fact of the Di- 
vine Paternity and Sonship, which we have already 
proved from Holy Scripture. The relation of Father 
and Son is conceivable only on the assumption of a 
real and true yevgors in the proper sense of the term.2 
Consequently there is in the bosom of the Godhead a 
first Procession, which is true Generation. LE sas. St. 
Paul tells us,? 3 all. paternity in heaven and on earth is 
fa weak j imitations of the paternity of “the Father-of 
‘our Lord “Tess” Christ, ” and if the supernatural adop- 
tion of the just is but an analogue of Christ’s true 
Sonship,?. it follows, not indeed that the divine gen- 

1 On the term vyevynots, cfr. New- 2 Eph. III, 314 sq. 


man, Select Treatises of St. Athana- 3 Cfr. John, I, 12; Gal. IV, 4 Sq. 
sius, II, 352 sq. 
162 


THE PROCESSION OF THE SON 163 


_ nesis must be conceived figuratively after the manner 
A of creatural generation, but, “contrariwise, that the latter 
is merely an imperfect representation of the former. 
The_only_ true generation, in the highest sense, there- 
fore, is the divine yévvyois, as the Godhead alone is 
Being in its truest and highest sense. Holy Scripture 
frequently intimates the™ genuineness of the divine yev- 
_vqois by applying to Christ such epithets as “ the Only-be- 
gotten of the Father,”* and © ‘the Only-begotten Son 
of the Father.”*> 


b) Holy Scripture, moreover, distinctly teaches 
that the Son proceeds from the Father by eter- 
nal generation. Heb. I, 5: “Cut enim dixit 

aliquando ‘angelorum: Filius meus es tu, ego 
hodie genui te (yeyévyxd oe) ? — For to which of 
the angels hath he said at any time: Thou art 
my Son, to-day have I begotten thee?” 

Most clearly perhaps this divine Procession is 
taught in Psalm CIX, verse 3. “Lecum prin- 
cipium in die virtutis tuae in splendoribus sanc- 
torum: ex utero ante luciferum [= ab aeterno] 
genut te — With thee is the principality in the 
day of thy strength: in the brightness of the 
saints: from the womb before the day star I 
begot thee.” It is true, the Masoretic text, as 
we have it, renders this passage differently. In- 
asmuch, however, as (aside from the Itala and 
the Vulgate) the Septuagint® and the Syriac 


_ 4John III, 16, et passim. 6 The Septuagint translates: ’Ex 
5 John I, 14, et passim. yaorpos mpd éwspdpov éeyévynod ce, 


164 THE -POSITIVE -TRADITION 


Peshitta, which were both made directly from 
the original Hebrew, give the passage as above 
quoted, the Masoretic variation can safely be at- 
tributed to a mistake made by the Jewish writers 
who some time previous to the tenth century 
drew up that collection of criticisms and mar- 
ginal notes which forms the basis of our present 
Hebrew Old Testament. This theory is all the 
more plausible in view of the fact that the elimi- 
nation of two small words, *® and Te., and a 
change in the punctuation of the remainder of 
the text, would make the seemingly corrupt 
passage conform with the Vulgate. Another im- 
portant consideration in clearing up this diffi- 
culty is that for several centuries the Fathers 
employed this particular text to prove the Con- 
substantiality of the Logos with the Father by 
virtue of His eternal Generation? Thus St. 
Basil, or rather the author of the fifth Book 
against Eunomius found among St. Basil’s works, 
‘writes: “Propterea habere se in generando 
uterum dixtt Deus ad confusionem improrum, ut 
vel sua ipsorum natura considerata discant, 
Filium fructum esse Patris genunum, utpote ex 
elus utero emergentem— God speaks of His 
womb for the purposevof confounding the im- 
pious, that they may learn by a consideration 
of their own nature that the Son is the genuine 


%Cfr.. Ruiz, De Trinit., disp. 4, sect. 1. 


THE: PROCESSION, OF THEYSON 165 


product of the Father, as if He had emerged from 
| His womb.” ° 

A parallel passage to Ps. CIX, 3, is John I, 
18: “Unigemtus Filius, qui est in sinu Patris 
(6 povoyevns vios 6 Ov eis TOV KOATOV TOU matpos ) — The 
only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the 
Father.” Taken in connexion with certain preg- 
nant terms found in the Sapiential Books, such 

as “parturiebar’ and “concepta eran’ ° and pas- 
sages like Ecclus. XXIV, 5,*° these texts seem 
to remove all doubt as to the scripturality of the 
doctrine of the divine yew ars. 

2. THE ARGUMENT FROM TRADITION.—The 
dogma of the Son’s generation was brought 
prominently forward by all the Fathers and 
ecclesiastical synods of the fourth century, be- 
cause it is the foundation and logical ante- 
cedent of the dogma of the” Sue yeu esi of 
Son and Father. 

a) St. Hilary tersely declares: “Jgnorat Deum 


Christum, qui ignorat Deum natum; Deum autem nasct 
non est aliud quam im ea natura esse, qua Deus est — 


oe knows not the God- Christ, who knows not that. / parsed 
God is begotten ; but to say that God is begotten, ds. 


tantamount to saying that He is of the same nature 
8 Contr. Eunom., 1. 5; Migne, P. most High, the firstborn before all 
G.-X XIX, 715. creatures.”” (On “ The Doctrine of 

9 Prov. VIII, 24. the Primogenitus,’ see Newman, 


10‘‘ Ego ex ore Altissimi prodivi, 
primogenita ante omnem creaturam 
—I came out of the mouth of the 


Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastt- 
cal, pp. 199 sqq.) 


epee! 


166 THE POSITIVE TRADITION 


as God.” ** And St. Augustine: “Jdeo quippe Filius, 
quia gemitus, et quia Filius, utique genitus— For He 
is therefore a son, because begotten, and because a 
son, therefore certainly begotten.” 12 This unanimous 
teaching of the Fathers faithfully echoes all the ancient 
creeds, from the Apostles’ to the Athanasian,— which 
latter sharply emphasizes the fact that “Pater a nullo 
est factus nec creatus nec genitus; Filius a patre solo 
est, non factus nec creatus, sed genitus —The Father 
is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The 
Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but 
begotten.” 12 We must als mention in this connection 
the eleventh of the “Anathematismi” of Popes ot 
Damasus I (A.D, 380). It reads as follows: “Si 
quis non dixerit Filium natum de Patre, id est de divina 
substantia ipsius, anathema sit—If any one will not 
profess that the Son is begotten by the Father, that is 
to say, from the Divine _ Substance of the Father, let 
him be anathema.” ** — 

b) The Fathers and Catholic theologians generally are 
one in teaching that the process of divine Generation 
_is a relation involving only the Father and the Son. 
Various. attempts: at positing in the Godhead other ‘such 
relations, as, é. Ju maternity, were indignantly re- 


the existence - itself ; in Him it has 
not existence for its end, but it is 


11 De Trinitate, L 11. Petavius 
(De Trinit., II, 5, n. 7), quotes the 


following passage from Theodorus 
Abucara: ‘Since the Son’s gen- 
eration does but signify His having 
His existence from the Father, 
which He has ever, therefore He is 
ever begotten. For it became Him 
who is properly (kupiws) the Son, 
ever to be deriving His existence 
from the Father, and not as we 
who derive its commencement only. 
'In us generation is a way to exist- 
sence; in the Son of God it denotes 


itself an end (rédos), and is perfect 
(ré\eLov)- = Chr Newman, Select 
Treatises of St. Athanasius, II, 353. 
(On Theodorus Abucara, cfr. Her- 
der’s Kirchenlexikon, XI, 1508 sq.) 


12 De Trinitate, V, 6, 7 (Had- 
dan’s translation, p. 151). 

18 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri- 
dion, n. 39. 

14 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri- 
dion, n. 69. 


THE PROCESSION: OF: THE SON 167 


jected by the Fathers as blasphemous. ‘© Since the di- 


“vine years must be conceived as a purely intellectual /.. 


i process, there is no need of postulating in the Godhead 
a specia! principle of conception and parturition. The 
Father generates His Divine Son by way of under- 
standing,*® as the adequate likeness of His Essence. 
When the Patristic Writers speak of the “ conception ” 


and “birth” of the Son of God, or advert to the 


“bosom ” of the Father, they merely mean to emphasize ». 


~ The Sapiential Books of the Old Tanti some- 
times refer to Hypostatic Wisdom as the “ First-born ” 
or as “ Mother of fair love.” But these phrases offer 
no serious difficulty. The epithet ‘“ Mother of fair 
love” is merely meant to intimate the maternal ten- 
derness of God’s affection for us, and the feminine form 
“ primogenita”’ (instead of “ primogenitus’’) is due to 
the grammatical accident that in Hebrew NIN (1. e., 
sapientia), like ocodia in the Greek Seuhaee is of 
feminine gender.1” 


Reapincs : — St. Anselm, Monologium, c. 30-43; Ruiz, De Tri- 
mitate, disp. 4 sqq.; Hurter, Compendium Theol. Dogmat., tom 
I, thes. 107 (Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, II, pp. 
176 sqq., 2nd ed.); *Kleutgen, De Ipso Deo, 1. Te quien 
I sqq.; Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 30; Heinrich, Dog- 
matische Theologie, Vol. IV, § 241; G. B. Tepe, Instit. Theol., 
Vol. II, pp. 293-325, Paris 1895; Newman, The Arians of the 
Fourth Century, pp. 158 sqq., New Impression, London IQOI ; 

_ Ivem, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, Vol. II, pp. 287 sqq.,_ 
337 sqq.; 9th ed., London 1903; A Studle; De Processionibus 
Divinis, Frib. Helv. 1895. 


_ 15 Cfr, Epiphanius, Haer., 62. Of God and His Creatures, p. 357, 
16 “Per modum intélléctus.” The et passim). 
English rendering of this technical 17 Cfr. Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., 


term we adopt from Rickaby (cfr, 3rd _ed., tom. II, pp. 283 sqq., Fri- 
: burgi- 1906. 


SEONG 2 


THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY GHOST FROM THE 
FATHER AND THE SON © 


The second Procession in the Godhead_ 1s 


: ‘qualitatively distinct from Generation. Though 


often designated by the generic term processio 
(éxrdpevors) , it is by most theologians and several 
councils called Spiration (spiratio, mvevors), Reve- 


lation leaves no room for doubt as to the Proces- 


sion of the Holy Ghost from the Father. But 
the Greeks, since the schism of Photius, hereti- 
cally assert that He proceeds from the Father 


alone; and not from the Son. To this heretical 


assertion, which has been expressly rejected by 
the Church, we oppose the Catholic doctrine that 
the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and 
the Son. - 


ARTICLE. 1 


THE HERESY OF THE GREEK SCHISM AND ITS CONDEMNA- 
TION BY THE CHURCH 


1. THE Heresy oF THE SCHISM.—It 1s im- 
possible to ascertain just when the heresy as- 


serting the Procession of the Holy Ghost from 
168 


PROCESSION OF THE HOLY GHOST 169 


the Father alone originated. When the Mace- 
donians declared the Holy Ghost to be a creature 
of the Logos-Son, the Second Ecumenical Coun- 
cil (A. D. 381), to safeguard the dogma of His 
Divinity, thought it sufficient to_affrm His Con- 
sap sanciauty with the Father in the phrase: 

“Qui ex Patre procedit— Who proceeds from 
‘the Father.” 


Petavius and Bellarmine assume, but without sufficient 
warrant, that Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret 
were the original authors of the heresy with which we 
_are dealing. The more probable theory is that certain 
Nestorians, whose identity can no longer be ascertained, 
in course of time somehow came to believe that the 
Council of Constantinople by “ex Patre” meant “ex 
solo Patre.’ This view was publicly defended for the 
first time in Jerusalem, A.D. 808, by some fanatic 
monks, who protested against the insertion of the word 
“ Filioque’’ into the Nicene Creed, because, as they 
alleged, the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son. 
It was, however, reserved for Photius, the ambitious 
and crafty Patriarch of Constantinople, the most learned 
scholar of his age,? (+ 891), to accuse the Latins of 
heresy for adopting the “ Filioque’’ and to raise the 
denial of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the 
Son to the rank of a palmary dogma of the Greek 
Church. At a great council held in Constantinople, 
A. 2). 879, which was attended by 380 bishops, the 

1 On Theodore of Mopsuestia, see Photius, see A. Fortescue, The Or- 
_Bardenhewer- “Shahan, Patrology, pp. thodox Eastern Church, pp. 138 sqq. 
3#8-322; on Theodoret, the same Cfr. also the same brilliant writer’s 


work, pp. 370-376. C. T. S. brochure, Rome and Con- 
2 For a fine character sketch of stantinople, pp. 12 sqq. 


170 THE POSITIVE TRADITION 


Greeks formally pronounced sentence of anathema 
against all who should add to, or take from, the Symbol 
‘of Nicaea. After Photius’s death “ peace was restored 
temporarily between the churches, although by this time 
there is already a strong anti-papal party at Constanti- 
nople. But the great mass of Christians on either side 
are reconciled, and have no idea of schism for one 
hundred and fifty more years.”* In the eleventh cen- 
tury came the final rupture under Michael Cerularius. 
The Great Schism settled into permanency, and, after 
a brief reunion in the fifteenth century, still continues.‘ 


2. THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH ON THE 
PROCESSION OF THE Hoty Guost.—The Church 
jealously guarded the Apostolic teaching that 

the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father 

and the Son. This appears clearly from the 
insertion of the word “Filioque”’ into the Con- 
stantinopolitan Creed. 


_. Though the-Council of Chalcedon (A. D. 451) had for- 
| pidden the reception into the Creed of any other faith® 
' than that of Nicaea, there soon came a time when it 
was found necessary to enforce explicit profession 
of faith in the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the 
Son as well as from the Father. The “ Filioque” first 
came into use in Spain. On the occasion of the con- 
version of the Arian Goths under King Reccared, the 
Third Council of Toledo (A. D. 589) decreed the inser- 
tion of the term into the Creed and ordered that the 

8 Fortescue, The Orthodox East- 5 “Erépa mioris (whereby it can 
ern Church, p. 171. have meant nothing else than _heter- 


4 Fortescue, The Orthodox East- odox additions). 
ern Church, pp. 201 sqq. 


THE FILIOQUE 171 


3) 


words “ex Patre Filioque”’ should be sung “ with raised 
voices ” during the celebration of the Divine Mysteries. 
In course of time the “ Filioque” spread to France and 
Germany, thence to England and Upper Italy, and finally 
to Rome, where, however, for disciplinary reasons, the 
Popes did not encourage its adoption, though from a 
purely dogmatic point of view the matter had long been 
ripe for a decision. As early as A.D. 410, a large 
number of bishops, assembled in synod at Seleucia, had 
solemnly professed their faith “in Spiritum vivum et 
sanctum, Paraclitum vivum et sanctum, qui procedit ex 
Patre et Filo — In the living and holy Ghost, the living 
and holy Paraclete, who proceeds from the Father and 
the ‘Son. "6 The “Athanasian Creed” contains the 
clause: “Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio— The Holy 
Ghost [is] of the Father and the Son;” and long be- 
fore its composition (5th or 6th century) a synod be- 
lieved to have been held at Toledo (A.D. 447), had \ 
defined that “the Holy Ghost proceeds from the 
Father and the Son.”* Pope Hormisdas (-+ 523), 
in a letter to the Emperor Justin I, employed the 
phrase: “de Patre et Filio’’ Many provincial synods 
inculcated the same doctrine (Aix-la-Chapelle, A. D.} 
789; Friaul,. A.D. 791; Worms,A. Di 868; etc.) 
The Emperor Charlemagne was particularly attached to 
the “ Filioque” and it consequently became very popular 
among the Franks. But when a few Frankish zealots 


6 Cfr. Lamy, Concilium Seleuciae 
et Ctesiphonti Habitum a. 410, Lo- 
vanii 1868; Ipem, ‘‘ Le Concile tenu 
a Seleucie-Ctésiphon,” printed in 
the Compte rendu du 3e Congrés 
Scientifique International des Ca- 
tholiques, Bruxelles 1895, Sect. II, 
pp. 267 sqq. 

7 According to 


12 


the recent re- 


searches of Morin and Kiunstle this 
synod was never held, and what 


were hitherto thought to be its | 


decrees are the production of an 


individual Spanish bishop. Cr. 
Bilz, Die Trinitdtslehre des hl. 
Johannes von Damaskus, p. 157, 


Paderborn 1909. 


172 THE POSITIVE TRADITION 


es to censure as insufficient the Greek formula 

‘a Patre per Filium,” Pope Hadrian I defended it and 

yuoted the Greek Fathers in its support. 

Long after the outbreak of the Great Schism the Fourth 
Lateran Council (A. D, 1215) again took up the matter 
and defined it as an article of faith that “Pater a 
nullo, Filius a Patre solo, ac Spiritus Sanctus pariter 
_ab utroque — The Father [is] from no one; the Son [is] 
from the Father alone; and the Holy Ghost [1s] equally 
from both the Buther and the Son.” Lastly there is 
the important definition of the Ecumenical Council of 
_Lyons, A. D,. 1274, that the Holy Ghost proceeds eter- 
' nally from the Father and the Son as from one prin- 
i ciple and in one Spiration: “ Spiritus Sanctus aeternali-— 
ter ex Patre et Filio, non tamquam ex duobus principus, 
sed tamquam ex uno principio, non duabus spirationi- 
bus, sed unica spiratione procedit.’* This teaching was 
solemnly confirmed in the decree by which the Council 
of Florence (1439) sealed the restored union:® “ Diffini- 
mus, quod Spiritus Sanctus ex Patre et Filio aeternali- 
ter est et essentiam suam suumque esse subsistens habet 
ex Patre simul et Filio, et ex utroque aeternaliter tam- 
quam ab uno principio et unica spiratione procedit — 
We define that the Holy Ghost is eternally from the 
‘Father and the Son, and has His essence and sub- 
sistence at once from the Father and the Son; and that 
He eternally proceeds from both as from one Principle 
and by one Spiration.” # — 


In consequence of the machinations of the 
schismatical Bishop Mark of Ephesus, the re- 


8 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En- 10 Upon this definition is based 
chiridion, n. 460. the well-known theological axiom: 
9 Published on July 6, 1439. Den- “Duo quidem spirantes, sed unus 


zinger-Bannwart, n. 691. spirator.” 


THE FILIOQUE 173 


union brought about at Florence came to as bad 
an end as that effected at Lyons two centuries 
earlier. It must have seemed to many like a 
manifestation of divine anger when, on Pentecost 
Sunday, A. D. 1453, the Turks broke down the 
walls of Constantinople, and its last Emperor, 
Constantine Dragases, fell in battle at the gate 
of St. Romanus. 


READINGS: — On the history of the Greek Schism, see Werner, 
Geschichte der apologetischen und polemischen Literatur der 
christlichen Theologie, Voi. III, Schaffhausen 1864; *Hergen- 
rother, Photius, Freiburg 1867-60, I, 684 sqq. III, 399 saq.; IDEM, 
Kirchengeschichte, 4th ed., Vol. II, pp. 234 sqq., Freiburg 1904; 
Langen, Die trinitarische Lehrdiffereng zwischen der abendlandi- 
schen und morgenlindischen Kirche, Bonn 1876; Hefele, Con- 
ciliengeschichte, Vol. IV, 2nd ed., Freiburg 1879; Fortescue, The 
Orthodox Eastern Church, pp. 134 sqq., London 1907; Duchesne- 
Mathew, The Churches Scparated Fron Rome, pp. 109 sqq., 
London 1907; Alzog-Pabisch-Byrne, Manual of Universal Church 
History, Vol. Il, pp. 449 saqq. 5th ed., Cincinnati 1899; S. 
Vailhé, s. v. “Greek Church,’ in the Catholic Encyclopedia, 
Vol. VI, pp. 763 sqq. 


ARTICLE 2 


THE POSITIVE TEACHING OF REVELATION 


I. SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT.—Sacred Scripture 
expressly mentions only the Procession of the 
Holy Ghost from the Father." But this does 
not argue that there is no Scriptural warrant 
for the dogma of His Procession from the Son. 


oid John XV, 26: “The Paraclete.. . who proceedeth from the 
<. Father. 7 


174 THE POSITIVE TRADITION 


On the contrary, the Procession of the Holy 
Ghost from the Son can be proved by a three- 
fold argument based on Biblical texts. 

a) In the New Testament the Holy Ghost is 
represented not only as “the Spirit of the 
- Father,” but likewise as “the: Spirit ot othe: 
Son.” These phrases can have but one mean- 
ing, viz., that He proceeds from the Son as well 
"as from the Father. _For “Spiritus Filii,’ ex- 
pressing as it does a relation (spiritus alicuius ), 
can only mean “spiramen Filii” or “spiratus a 
Filio;” that is to say, the Holy Ghost is the spira- 
tion or breath of the Son. This conclusion can- 
not consistently be denied by those who, like the 
Greek schismatics, find themselves constrained 
to admit that the only reason why the Holy 
Ghost can be called “Spiritus Patris;’™ is that : 
He proceeds from the Father. If this be true, 
it must @ pari be concluded that He can be 
called “Spiritus Fili’’ only for the reason that 
He proceeds also from the Son,—a conclusion 
.which is fortified by the Scriptural phrase 
Filius Patris (or Filius Dei), which evidently ex- 
“presses a procession of the one from the other. 
It was but natural, therefore, for the Greek '4 
‘as well as for the Latin™ Fathers to employ 


12 Spiritus Filii’”? (Gal. IV, 6); ae Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, 
“ Spiritus Christi’ (Rom. VILE, 05 Maximus, Cyril of Alexandria, and 
Phil. 3,19; + Pet. 1,11): others. 


13 Matth. X, 20. 15 EF. g., Augustine, 


THE FILIOQUE 175 


) this text as an argument for the Procession of 
the Holy Ghost from the Son. 


The schismatics object that the Scriptural term 
“Spiritus Filii”” has its justification in. the consub- 
stantiality of the. Son with the Father, from whom 
alone, they claim, ‘the Holy Ghost ‘proceeds. But this 
is a mere evasion. Is-not the Holy Ghost, too, con- 
substantial with the Father, from whom alone proceeds 
the Son? Yet we could not without heresy call Christ 
“ Filius S piritus Sanctus because the Son does not pro- 
ceed from the Holy Ghost. Hence the inevitable: con- 
clusion that the Holy Ghost is “Spiritus Fil” only 
because He proceeds from the Son as well as from the 
Father. 


b) A still stronger argument can be drawn 


from what is knownas the “Mission” of the 
Holy Ghost. Missio, in its abstract sense, sig- 
nifies “the procession of one from another by 
virtue of some principle and for the purpose of 
accomplishing some task.” 


The three essential notes of any mission, be it divine 
or human, are: (1) A real distinction between the 
sender and the person sent, for it is obvious that no 
being can send itself, (2) A certain dependency of the 
“sent” in regard to the “ 
the part of the “ sent ” to some terminus (place or effect). 
It follows that every “ missus” enters into a twofold re- 
lation: a relation to the sender (mittens) as his terminus 
a quo, and a relation to the goal of his mission, which 
‘constitutes his terminus ad quem. In applying the con- 


cept of = mission ” ” to the Divine Persons we must first 


sender.” (3) A relation ony ~ 


“176 THE POSITIVE TRADITION. 


purge it of all human imperfections. In the Divinity 
any influence of the “Sender” on the “ Sent,” other 
than the relation of origin, would be repugnant to the 


Essence of the Triune God. The eternal Procession |» 


of one Divine Person from another | may be called In-— 
ternal Mission (missio ad intra). The Temporal Mis- 
sion is external and merely’ reflects the internal. 


We know as the result of a complete induction 
that Holy Scripture Fe represents the 
Father as dsthalet 2 ever as sett: ; the Son 
Ghost always as “sent,” ’ but nen as “sending.” 
Inasmuch as the Father sends the Son as well 
as the Holy Ghost, it is a patent conclusion, ad- 
mitted also by the schismatic Greeks, that the 
Son and the Holy Ghost proceed from the 
Father. But the Bible distinctly teaches that 
the Holy Ghost is sent not only by the Father, 
_ but also by the Son." Consequently, the Holy 
Ghost proceeds not only from the Father, but 
~ also from the Son. This Scriptural argument 
is so simple and convincing that it was often 
employed by the Fathers and_ ecclesiastical 
writers, both Greek and Latin..7 Thus St. Bul- 
gentius teaches: “Filtus est a Patre missus, 


16 John XIV, 16: “And I will “It is expedient to you that I go: 
ask the Father, and He shall give for if I go not, the Paraclete will 
‘you another Paraclete, that he may not come to you; oe biol beregoy I will 
abide with you for ever.” John send him to you.’ 

XV, 26: ‘But when the Paraclete 17 Cfr. Franzelin, De Deo Trino, 
cometh, whom I will send you from __ thes. 33. 
the. Father > 2” John XVI, as 


THE FILIOQUE 177 


quia Filius est a Patre natus, non Pater a Filo; 
similiter etiam Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filto 
legitur missus, quia a Patre Filioque procedit — 
The Son is sent by the Father, because the Son 
is begotten by the Father, not the Father by the 
Son; similarly we read that the Holy Ghost is 
sent by the Father and the Son, because He a 
ceeds from the Father and the Son.” ** 40% " ° 
@) rhe principal Scriptural argument for our 
present thesis is based on John Dal 13 sqq.: 
“Cum autem venerit ille Spiritus veritatis, docebit 
vos omnem veritatem. Non enim loquetur a se- 
metipso, sed, quaecumque audiet, loquetur et, quae 
ventura sunt, annuntiabit vobis. Ille me clarth- 
cabit, quia de meo accipiet et annuntiabit vobts. 
Omma quaecumaue habet Pater, mea_ sunt. 
Propterea dixt: quia. de meo accipiet [Mera 
other codices have dap Béver] et annuntiabit vobts 
— But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he 
will teach you all truth, for he shall not speak 
of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, 
he shall speak; and the things that are to come, 
he shall shew you. He shall glorify me; be- 
cause he shall receive of mine, and shall shew 
it to you. All things whatsoever the Father 
hath, are mine. Therefore, I said that he 


18 Contra Fabianum, fragm. 29. of St. Fulgentius of Ruspe, cfr. 
We possess only thirty-nine frag- Bardenhewer- Shahan, _Patrology, Pp. 
ments of this precious work. For 616- 618. 
an account of the life and writings 


178 THE POSITIVE TRADITION 


‘Shall receive [receives] of mine, and shew it 
to you.” The bearing of this precious dog- 
matic text will appear from the following con- 
siderations. In the first place it is said of the 
Holy Ghost that he “hears” and “receives” His 


_, knowledge of “the things that are to come,” 


(7. @., of the future),/from Christ.) Being in 
the future tense, “audiet” and “accipiet”’ cannot 
refer to the intrinsic, eternal essence of the Holy 
Ghost, but solely to His future temporal mani- 
festation ad extra. Now, one Divine Person 
can “hear” and “receive” from another only in 
so far as He does not, like the Father, pos- 
sess His knowledge, and consequently His es- 
sence, from Himself (a semetipso, a¢° éavrod) , but 
receives it by way of essential communication. 
“Ab illo audiet,” says St. Augustine, elucidating 
the passage, “a quo procedit. Audire illi. scire 
est, scire vero esse... . A quo illi essentia, ab 
illo scientia — He shall hear of Him from whom 
He proceedeth. To Him, to hear is to know; but 
to know is to be... from whom His Being 
is, from the same is His knowing.” ¥ Christ, 
too, derives His divine knowledge from the 
Father and “hears” and “learns” from the 
Father, by whom He is sent. “He that sent 
me, is true: and the things I have heard of him, 
these same I speak in the world. And _ they 


19 Tract. in Ioa., 99, 4. Browne’s translation, II, gro. 


THE FILIOQUE 179 


understood not that he called God his Father.” *° 
And again: “I do nothing of myself, but as 
the Father hath taught me, these things I 
epeaki.*). Hencey just as Christ “hears”. and 
“learns” from His Father only in so far as His 
divine nature with all the attributes of omnipo- 
tence, ommiscience, etc., are communicated to 
Him by His eternal Generation from the Father ; 
so, too, the Holy Ghost “hears” and “receives” 
from the Son only in this sense that all His 
knowledge and His whole essence are derived 
through origination from  Christ.?? Conse- 
quently the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son 
as well as from the Father. 


In their anxiety to escape the force of this argu- 
ment the adherents of Photius have not scrupled to ex- 
plain the text by interpolation. 
they read ék rov éuov [rarpds] Aneta, 1. e., the Holy 
Ghost receives His knowledge, as He receives His es- 
sence, from the Father, and hence proceeds from Him. 
But, as Cardinal Bessarion has observed, this con- 
struction conflicts with the rules of Greek grammar. It 
is untenable also for this additional reason that the con- 
text does not mention the Father at all, but speaks 


For ék tov éuov Anpera 


20 John VIII, 26 sq.: “ Qui me 
misit, verax est; et ego, quae audivi 
ab eo, haec loquor in mundo. Et 
non cognoverunt, quia Patrem eius 
dicebat Deum.” 

21John VIII, 28: “A _ meipso 
(am’ éuavrov) facio nihil, sed sicut 
docuit me Pater, haec loquor.”’ 

22 De meo accipiet=ex me pro- 
cedit. See J. E. Belser, Das Evan- 


gelium des hl. Johannes iibersetzt 
und erklart, pp. 440 sqq., Freiburg 
1905. Cfr, Epiphanius, Ancor., c. 8: 
“© Out a Patre procedit et de meo 
accipiet,’ ut ne alienus a Patre et 
Filio crederetur, sed eiusdem sub- 
stantiae ac divinitatis,...ex Pa- 
tre et Filio tertius appellatione.” 
(Migne, P.G., XLIII, 30.) 


180 THE POSITIVE. TRADITION 


solely of Christ and His relation to the “ Spiritus veri- 
tatis.” ?* Hence ék tov éuot is the genitive of the neuter 
noun 76 eudv, 1. e., that which is mine. This interpreta- 
tion is absolutely irrefutable in the light of John XVI, 
15: “Omnia, quaecumque habet Pater, mea sunt; ** 
propterea®® dixi: quia de meo”® accipiet.” The context 
is so clear that not a single Greek Father can be ad- 
duced who took ék tov éuot to be other than a neuter 
phrase, meaning: “He shall receive of [what is] 
mine. 74 


For the rest, Christ Himself tells us the pre- 
cise reason why and in how far the Holy Ghost 
“receives” from Him. “All things whatsoever 7° 
the Pather' hath; “he says,- “are mine; therefore 
I said that he shall receive of mine, and shew 
it to you.” *? Accordingly, the Son has what- 
soever the Father has, with the sole exception of 
Paternity, which is incommunicable. If, there- 
fore, as the schismatics admit, the Father has 
the power of Spiration, this power, being com- 
mtnicable, also belongs to the Son. Therefore 
the Son breathes the Holy Ghost together with 
the Father. Consequently the latter proceeds 
fromthe Son’ as: well. asfrom,, the ‘Father. 
Anselm of Havelsburg has thrown this argument 
into the form of a pretty sorites: “Unde al 


23' John, XV i533 (sd. Trinit., VII, 5; Ruiz, De Trinit., 
24 éud éoTt, disp. 67, sect. 2. 

25 61d ToUTO, 28 ravTa boa, 

26 éx Tov éeuov, 29 Oud ToOUTO, 

27 On the Patristic exegesis of 30 John XVI, 15. 


this passage, consult Petavius, De 


THE FILIOQUE 181 


[scil. Spiritui Sancto] essentia, inde ill au- 
dientia; et unde illi audientia, inde illi scientia; 
et unde illi scientia, inde illi processio — Whence 
‘He [the Holy Ghost] has His essence, thence 
_He has His hearing; and whence He has His 
‘hearing, thence He has His knowledge; and 
whence He has His knowledge; thence He has 
His Procession.” °* This interpretation coin- 
cides with that of the Greek Fathers, and the 
schismatics cannot disavow it without stultifying 
themselves.*? 

2. Parristic ARGUMENT.—The Greek schis- 
matics freely admit that the Latin Fathers 
unanimously teach the Procession of the Holy 
Ghost from the Father and the Son. Note that, 
in making this admission, they inadvertently con- 
demn their own attitude; for it is absurd to imag- 
ine that the Latin Church, which for eight cen- 
turies together with the Greek formed the one 
true Church of Christ, should have harbored a 
disgraceful heresy during all that time. But 
even if we put this consideration aside, we can 
convict the Greeks out of the mouths of their own 
Fathers. We shall confine ourselves to estab- 
lish this point here. The argument from Tra- 
dition, so far as it rests on conciliar decisions 
and the usage of the primitive Church, has al- 


“31 Dial, 11, 8. On Anselm of ed. alt., Vol. II, 107 sqq., Oenip. 
Wavciehe: Ord. Praem., and his 1906. 5 

Dialogi, consult Hurter, Nomencla- ~ 32 Cfr. Petavius, De Trinitate, 
tor Literarius Theologiae Catholicae, MITSNG: 


182 THE POSITIVE TRADITION 


ready been developed in a previous Section of this 
treatise.** 


a) One of the most authoritative of the Greek F athers 
i: St. Athanasius (+ 373). He expressly teaches that 

“the Holy Ghost holds the same relation to the Son 
»as to the Father,” and that consequently the total sub- 
pane of the Father is communicated to the Holy Ghost 

“ through the mediation of the Son.” ** Christ’s breath- 
ing upon the Apostles he explains as a symbol of the 
“ Procession” of the Holy Ghost from the Son. “The 
Son breathed the Holy Ghost into the Apostles’ counte- 
nance and said: ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost,’ in order 
that we might learn that the Spirit given to the Disciples 
is from the fulness of the Godhead; for in Christ, says 
the Apostle, the whole plenitude of the Godhead indwells 
corporeally.” *° For this reason he designates the Son 

s “the fountainhead (or source) of the Holy Ghost.” 3 
These and many similar phrases are merely equivalent 
terms signifying the “ Procession” of the Holy Ghost 
from the Son. 

b) St. Basil’s attitude on the question of the “ Filio- 
que’ may be gathered from his constant teaching that 
the Holy Ghost proceeds “ from the Father through the 
Son.” ** He furthermore affirms that “the divine dig- 
nity comes to the Holy Ghost from the Father through 


33 Supra, pp. 168 sqq. 35 Ad Serap., ep. 3. 

34S. cA ane Ad Serap., ep. I, 36 ray rnynv Tov ayiov mvev- 
n.19: “‘ Qualem scimus proprietatem™ aros. De Incarnatione contra 
“USstérnta) esse Filii ad Patrem, Arianos, 9. 
eandem ad Filium habere Spiritum 3% St. Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, 
S. comperiemus. Et quemadmodum XVIII, 45: “Ep 6 nal ro dytov 
Filius dicit: Omnia, quaecunque TvEvLa, «+.» Ov évds viov T@ évl 


habet Pater, mea sunt,’ ita haec warpl EEE TS 
omnia per Filium in Spiritu Sancto 
esse deprehendemus.” 


THE FILIOQUE 183 


[His] Only-begotten Son.’’** In a famous passage, 
which gave rise to acrid disputes at Florence, in 1439, 
St. Basil says that the Spirit holds His place after the 
Son, “because He holds from Him His being, and re- 
ceives from Him and communicates to us, and depends 
entirely on that principle (or cause).”®® “ Dignitate 
[%. @., secundum originem] namque Spiritum secundum 
esse a Filio [cum habeat esse ab ipso atque ab ipso ac- 
cipiat et annuntiet nobis, et omnino ab illa causa de- 
pendeat] tradit pietatis sermo.’* The bracketed clause, 
which definitely asserts the Procession of the Holy 
Ghost from the Son,*t was vigorously impugned by the 
Greeks, who claimed that it was spurious. But, as Dr. 
Bardenhewer points out, “that these are the genuine 
original words of Basil is proved by good arguments, 


extrinsic and intrinsic. 


But even were they the words 


of a forger, their meaning is true: and the entire argu- 
ment of Basil presupposes it as something logical and 
indispensable.” #” 
c) Of St. Gregory of Nazianzus (+ 389) Barden- 
_hewer observes: “The Filioque is not found in the 
_ writings of St. Gregory as clearly and openly as in those 
He takes it, however, for recognized and 
granted, that the Son also is principle or origin of the 


Sof Basil. 


Holy Spirit. 


When he says ** in his discourse delivered 


at the Second Ecumenical Council (381), that the Father 


38 L. c., n. 47: €x marpds dia Tov 
fovoryevous él 7d mvevua, 
«~ 39 The Latin Fathers prefer the 
: word principle for the Father and 
Son; the Greeks more frequently 
use cause (alria), 

40 Contra Eunom. III, 1 (apud 
Migne, P. G., XXIX, 653 sqq.). 

‘411t runs as follows in the orig- 


inal Greek: 


Ilap’ avrov 7d elvar 


éxov kal map’ avrov \auBdavory kat 
avayyéd\Nov Huiy Kal bdws THS 
aitias éxelyns é&numévor, 

42 Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrol- 
ogy, p. 282. For further informa- 
tion on this point, cfr. A Kranich, 
Der hl. Basilius in seiner Stellung 
zum Filioque, Augsburg 1882. 

43 O7., 425) Decl5< 


184 LE ROS RIV > See PIN 


Is dvapxos,**.the Son épy7, and the Holy Spirit 76 pera 
_ THs aépxns, he implicitly affirms that the mutual relation” 
’ between the Holy Spirit and the Son is that of one who 
proceeds to Him from whom He proceeds. Moreover, 
he expressly says that the Holy Spirit is 76 e€ apdowv_ 
curnupevor,*® i. e., He proceeds equally from the Father 
and the Son. The poem entitled Praecepta ad Virgines 
ends with these words: ‘One God from the Begetter 
through the Son, to the great Spirit (eis feds ek yevérao 
8” vieos és péya mvetua [this 1s the so-called kivnois ths 
povados eis tpidda]), since the perfect Divinity subsists in 
perfect Persons.’ ” *¢ 

Gregory of Nyssa, a brother of Basil the Great 

(+ after 394), also teaches that “the Holy Ghost is 
considered a distinct Hypostasis, because He is from 
God (é rod @eod), and is of Christ (rot Xpiorod), s 
that He does not share either the property of not pro- 
ceeding (76 dyévyrov) with the Father, or the property 
of being the Only-begotten with the Son.” ** There is 
another passage in the writings of Gregory, which, if 
its genuineness could be established, would be even more 
conclusive. Cardinal Bessarion cited it against those of 
his Greek countrymen who were opposed to the reunion, 
and at the same time protested against the perversion to 
which the passage had been subjected in an ancient manu- 
script codex of the works of St. Gregory at Florence, 
wherein some Greek forger had clumsily expunged the 
preposition é&. The passage occurs in the third of 
Gregory’s Sermones in Orationem Dominicam, and reads 

44QOn this term, in connection  trology, p. 292. See also Hergen- 
with apxn, efr. Newman, Select rother, Die Lehre von der géottlichen 
Treatises of St. Athanasius, II, 348 Dreteinigkett nach dem hl. Gregor 
sq. von Naziang, Ratisbon 1850. 


£6 OF.) Bit 2: 47 Sermo contr. Macedonianos, n. 
46 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa- Cae 


THE FILIOQUE 18 


Gh 


thus: “Spiritus Sanctus et ex Patre (ée rod natpés) 
dicitur et ex Filio esse (xat [ék] rov viov) perhibetur — 
The Holy Ghost is said to be from the Father and is 
shown to be also from the Son.” * 

d) The “ Filioque’”’ was very clearly taught by St. 
Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia Ci 403). In his An- 
coratus * he employs the formula 76 rveipa éx Tod ratpds 
kal Tov viov at least three times.®° And in his work “ The 
Medicine-Chest,” ** usually cited as Haereses, because 
written against eighty heresies,°? he says: “ Audi, quis- 
quis es, quod Pater vere est Filii Pater, totus lux, et 
Filius vere Patris lumen de lumine, ... et Spiritus 
Sanctus veritatis lumen tertium a Patre et Filio (és 
TpiTov Tapa matpos Kat viov).” 8 

To these authorities we may add Didymus the Blind 
(+ about 395), who, despite his Origenistic tenden- 
cies, according to the testimony of St. Jerome was 
certainly orthodox in his treatise on the Trinity. 
Didymus paraphrases John XVI, 13 as follows: “Non 
enim loquetur a semetipso, hoc est non sine me et Patris 
arbitrio, quia inseparabilis a mea et Patris voluntate ; 
quia non ex se, sed ex Patre et me est: hoc enim ipsum, 
quod subsistit, a Patre et me illi est —[St. John XVI, 
13, says: But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, 
he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of 
himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall 
speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew 
you.] He will not speak of himself, that is to say, not 


48 On the Trinitarian doctrine of 51 Tlavdpioy or Tavdpca,, 
St. Gregory of Nyssa, cfr. Barden- 52°Migne,  Po"Gs "XLT “sq. Cfr. 
hewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 300- Bardenhewer- Siatwnt Patrology, pp. 
302. 310 sqq. 

49 Aykupwrds, i. ¢€., the firmly- 53 Haereses, 74, 8. 
arichored man. 54 Hieron., Contra Rufin., II, 16: 


50 Ancor., nn. 8, 9, II. “ Certe in Trinitate catholicus est.” 


186 THE POSITIVE TRADITION 


without Me and the judgment of the Father, because 
He is inseparable from Mine and the Father’s will; be- 
cause He is not from Himself, but from the Father and 
Me; for He has His very subsistence from the Father 
and Me.’ ® 

Lastly we will mention St. Cyril of Alexandria 
(+ 444), whose writings fairly swarm with texts in 
support of the “ Filioque.’ Not only does he employ the 
formula “Ex zatpés 80 viot mpoxeduevov mvespa — The Holy 
Ghost flows forth from the Father through the Son,” °° 
but he distinctly asserts: “ Spiritus Sanctus procedit ex 
Patre et Filio (mpdeor 8& kat é« ratpds kal viod)— The Holy 
Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.” 5 


e) Cardinal Bessarion, in his famous dog-_ 
matic discourse at the Council of Florence, A. D. 
1439, summarized the teaching of the entire 
Patristic period on the dogma of the Blessed 
Trinity in these words: “Latint Patres claris- 
sime et dissertissime docent, Spiritum Sanctum 
procedere ex Filio et Filium, sicut Patrem, esse 
eius principium. Deinde Orientales quoque, non 
secus ac Occidentales, hoc ipsum dicere demon- 
stravimus, cum alu Spiritum ex Patre per Filium 
procedere, alii ex Patre et Filio atque ex am- 
bobus esse aunt, sicque aperte docent, esse etiam 
ex Filio — The Latin Fathers teach most clearly 
and eloquently that the Holy Ghost proceeds 


55 Didymus, De Spiritu Sancto, 2. 56 De Adorat. in Spiritu et Veri- 
Another, larger extract from the tate, apud Migne, P. G. LXVIII, 147, 
writings of Didymus on the Trinity 57 Thesaurus Assert., 34. Migne, 


is quoted by Petavius, De Trinitate, P.G, LXXV, 586. 
VII, 3,. 6. 


THE FILIOQUE 187 


from the Son, and that the Son, like the Father, 
is His principle. We have also demonstrated 
that the Greek Fathers, too, agree in this teach- 
ing of the Latins; some of them saying that the 
Spirit proceeds from the Father through the 
Son, while others declare that He proceeds from 
the Father and the Son, or from both, which 
manifestly means that He proceeds also from 
the Son.” °* In matter of fact it is only by 
harmoniously blending the Latin “ex Patre Filio- 
que’ with the Greek “ex Patre per Filium’’ that 
we afrive at the whole truth. Nor was the Latin 
formula limited to the Latins, or the Greek for- 
mula to the Greeks. The Greek formula, which 
Scheeben calls “the organic conception,” occurs 
e. g. in the writings of Tertullian,°® Novatian, 
and Hilary; °° while, conversely, the Latin con- 
ception, which has been styled the “personal,” 
is familiarly employed by several of the Greek 
Fathers, as we have seen in a previous paragraph. 


In the “organic” formula the preposition &¢ has a 


causal meaning, indicating that the Son is not 


‘merely the passage or ‘“‘channel,” as it were, of 


the paternal Spiration of the Holy Ghost, but 
Himself positively cooperates in the act of Spira- 
tion; for the Father and the Son together con- 
stitute one undivided principle of Spiration, and 


58 Cfr. Hardouin, Concil., t. IX, 59 Contr. Prax., c. 4. 
Pp. 367. 60 De Trinit., XII, n. 57. 


13 


188 LHE POSITIVE -FRADITION 
‘Spiration itself is one single (notional) act con- 
summated by both Divine Persons in consort. 
The coordinating conception of the Latins brings 
this out very clearly, but it rather neglects 
another equally important truth, vez., that, de- 
spite the identity of the act of Spiration, the 
Father is its original principle (4vapxes), whereas 
the Son is the “principiatum’” (ds & cos), who 
receives the “virtus spirandi” from the Father. 
This truth is more sharply emphasized in the 
Greek formula.** 


It is in the light of considerations such as these that we 
must interpret certain utterances of St. John of Damas- 
cus, of which the schismatics make much, and which St. 
Thomas thought it his duty to censure. In matter of fact 
the Damascene does not deny the procession of the Holy 
Ghost from the Son. He merely says: 
mvedpa, ody’ ws e€ adrov, ddr’ ds Ov adrov éx TOU maTpds éxro- 
pevdpevov* pdvos yap aitios (==dpyy dvapxos) 6 marnp.” ©. 
This view is-fully shared by the Latin Fathers. St. 
Augustine, ¢, g., says: “Spiritus Sanctus principaliter 
procedit de Patre ... qui, quidquid unigenito Verbo 
dedit, gignendo Hse ie Holy Ghost proceeds prin- 


6é ~ 
Kat viov dé 


cipally from the Father... . 


who, whatever He gave 


to the Only-begotten” Word, He gave by begetting 


Him.” ®% 


Similarly St. John Chrysostom: 


“The phrase 


through Him (8¢ abrot), is employed for no other rea- 


61 Cfr. St. Thomas, §. Theol., 1a, 
qu. 36, art. 3. 

62 De Fide Orthodoxa, I, 12, 
Migne, P. G., XCIV, 849. On the 
analogous teaching of St. Maximus 
the Confessor (+ 662), whom the 


Greek schismatics cite as an au- 
thority second only to St. John 
Damascene, cfr. Franzelin, De Deo 
Trino, thes. 36, n. 2. 

63 St. August., De Trinitate, XV, 
17. 


THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 189 


‘; son than to exclude the suspicion that the Son is in- 
\ generate.” ** The Council of Florence (A.D. 1439), 

following that of Lyons (A.D. 1274), confirmed this 
| view in its famous decree of reunion,® and formally de- 
| fined both the “ex Patre et Filio” and the “ unica spiratio 
amborum ” as articles of faith. 


Be A econ Nene ARGUMENT.—In their debates 
with the anti-unionist Greeks at the Council of 
Florence, the Latin theologians rightly insisted 
that, if the Son were excluded from cooperation 
in the act of Spiration, there would be no ground 
for distinguishing Him hypostatically from the 
Holy Ghost; because the Son is hypostatically 
distinct from the Holy Ghost only by virtue of 
the relative opposition involved in breathing 
(spirare) and being breathed (spirart). 


a) St. Thomas ® and his school adopted and developed 
this theological argument, whereas Duns Scotus,*? with 
a few of his followers, denied its cogency,*°— an atti- 
tude for which they have been more or less severely 
blamed by the “sententia communis.” © In matter of 
fact the argument stands unshaken to the present day. 
It is a theological axiom that “ All is indistinctly one in 
the Godhead, except where a relative opposition of Per- 
‘son to Person furnishes the basis for a real distinction.” 
If this be true, as we shall demonstrate later on in treat- 


64 Hom. in Ioa., V, n. 2. 68 Cfr. De Rada, Controv. Theol. 

65 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri- inter S. Thomam et Scotum, lib. 
dion, n. 691. I, controv. 15, Coloniae 1620. 

COS eheols Tay Gu.. BOs alte, 2: 69 Cfr. Ruiz, De Trinit., disp. 68, 


com 67 Comment, in Quatuor Libros sect. 5. 
f Sént., 1, Dist... 17, qu; 2. 


190 THE POSITIVE TRADITION 


ing of the divine Relations, no personal distinction can 
be posited between the Son and the Holy Ghost out- 
side of that of a relative opposition between two Divine 
Persons. Now, no such relative opposition is conceivable 
between them unless. One proceeds. from the Other. 
Consequently the Holy Ghost proceeds also from the 
Son, else both would coincide in an indistinguishable 
unity and lose their independence as distinct Hypostases. 

b) Scotus’s objections against this theological argu- 
ment will not bear scrutiny. If, he says, the Son alone 
without the Father breathed the Spirit, the personal dis- 
tinction between the Father and the Holy Ghost would 
still remain; consequently, Procession as such cannot be 
a conditio sine qua non of the relative opposition and 
the hypostatic differences existing in the Godhead. 
We answer that in the hypothesis of Scotus the Holy 
Ghost would still proceed from the Father. True, His 
' Procession would be a mediate one through the Son; 
‘ but even such a mediate Procession would suffice to estab- 
lish relative opposition, and therefore a hypostatic differ- 
ence. If, conversely, we assumed with the schismatics 
that the Father alone breathes, without the Son, the Son 
would differ hypostatically from the Father by virtue of 
His Filiation, but He would not differ hypostatically from- 
the Holy Ghost, nor could any personal differencé arise 
unless the Son were placed in relative opposition to the 
Holy Ghost, which is conceivable only on the basis of 
a processio. All of which proves that it is a postulate 
of theological consistency that the Holy Ghost proceeds 
from the Son. 


Reapincs:— Van der Moeren, De Processione Spiritus Sancti 
ex Patre Filioque, Lovanii 1864; *Kleutgen, Theologie der Vor- 
zeit, 2nd ed., Vol. I, Miinster 1867; A. Vincenzi, De Processione 
Spiritus Sancti, Romae 1878; *Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 32- 


THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 191 


41, Romae 1881 (a very exhaustive treatise) ; IbeEM, Examen Doc- 
trinae Macariu Bulgakow... de Processione Spiritus Sancti, 
Romae 1876; A. Kranich, Der hl. Basilius und seine Stellung 
zum Filioque, Braunsberg 1882. 

Of the Scholastics, cfr. St. Thomas, Contr. Gent., IV, 24 sqq. 
(Rickaby, Of God and His Creatures, pp. 356 sqq., London 
1905); *St. Anselm, De Processione Spiritus Sancti contra 
_ Graecos; “Stiarez, Dé Trinit., 1. X; Ruiz, De Trinit., disp. 67% 
Petavitis, De Trinit., 1. VII. Cfr. also Petr. Arcudius, Opuscula 
Aurea Theologica, Romae 1670 and Hugo Laemmer, Scriptor. 
Graeciae Orthodox. Bibliotheca Selecta, Friburgi 1864 sq. 


CHAPTER IV 


THE SPECULATIVE THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 
OF THE DOGMA OF THE TRINITY 


That there are Three Persons in one God is 
and must ever remain a sacrosanct mystery 
which human reason cannot fathom. It is only 
through Divine Revelation that we know of the 
existence of that immanent process of Generation © 
and Spiration which underlies the real distinction 
of three Persons in the Godhead. 


Enlightened and guided by faith, however, reason is 
able, by means of syllogistic deductions, analogies, etc., 
and by skilfully synthesizing the various scattered data 
furnished by Revelation, to attain to a progressive the- 
ological understanding of the dogma, nay even to a de- 
gree of certainty concerning some of its more abstruse 
features. Speculative discussion, which for safety’s sake 
must always keep itself solidly planted on the teaching 
_ of Revelation, as defined by the infallible Church, is con- 
cerned chiefly with two classes of problems, viz.: (1) 
the precise character of the two Processions per intel- 
lectum et voluntatem; and (2) the corollaries which flow 
therefrom with regard to the divine Relations, Proper- 
ties, and Notions. To these two categories must be 
added the theory of the divine Appropriations and Mis- 

sions. As for the degree of certitude enjoyed by these 
Py 192 


DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA 193 


doctrines, Glossner justly observes that they “ represent 
merely the immediate consequences of the dogma” and 
“are, as it were, a hedge surrounding the law, which 
no theologian may with impunity ignore.” 4 

1 Lehrbuch der kath. Dogmatik, nes’s Compendium, Eng. ed. by W. 
I, 2, pp. 128 sq., Ratisbon 1874. Lescher, O. P., pp. 81-83, London 


Cfr. S. Thom., S. Theol., 1a, qu. 1906). 
32, art. 4 (summarized in Bonjohan- 


SECTION I 


THE DOGMA IN ITS RELATION TO REASON 


I. THE BLEssED TRINITY A MystEery.—That 
there are three Persons in one God is a mystery 
which human reason, left to its own resources, 
can neither discover nor demonstrate. Even 
after its actual revelation, theistic philosophy is 
unable stringently to prove the possibility, much 
less the existence and intrinsic necessity, of the 
Divine Trinity, which must therefore be counted 
among the mysteries called absolute or tran- 
scendental. St. Thomas Aquinas observes with 
perfect justice that whosoever ventures to dem- 
onstrate the Trinity by unaided reason, derogates 
from the faith.2 This indemonstrability of the 
mystery of the Divine Trinity is due to the fact 
that, while here on earth, the human intellect, 
in spite of its being illumined by the light of 
Revelation, has no intuitive vision of the Divine 
Essence, but arrives at its knowledge of it by 
a contemplation of the physical universe,* which 


2S. Theol.,~12,. du.1 32, att. 2: 3Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His 
“Oui probare nititur trinitatem per- Knowability, Essence, and Attrt- 
sonarum naturali ratione, fidet dero- butes, pp. 17 sqq. 
gat.” 


194 


THE DOGMA AND REASON 195 


is the work, not of the Blessed Trinity as such, 
but of the One God who summoned the world 
out of nothingness. From the consideration of 
created things the human mind ascends to a 
knowledge of the Divine Nature as the creative 
principle of the cosmos. But it cannot arrive at 
a knowledge of the Divine Persons, except in 
so far as it is able to infer that the infinite 
Creator of spiritual beings must needs possess 
the simple perfection of personality. How this 
personality is constituted we have no means of 
determining. “De mysterio Trinitatis,’ says St. 
Jerome, “recta confessio est ignoratio scientiae.” * 


This absolute inscrutability is plainly intimated in 
Matth. XI, 27: “ Nemo novit Filium msi Pater; neque 
Patrem quis novit nisi Filius et cui voluerit Filius 
revelare — No one knoweth the Son, but the Father: 
neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, 
and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him.” 
Cfr. 1 Cor. II, 11: “Quae Dei sunt, nemo cognovit 
nisi Spiritus Dei — The things that are of God no man 
knoweth, but the Spirit of God.” Though there exists no 
formal definition on the subject, the absolute incompre- 
hensibility of this mystery is a certain theological con- 
clusion, flowing from the declaration of the Vatican 
Council that there are absolute mysteries of the faith.® 


- 1816: 


4In Is., Prooem. ad I. 18. 

5 Sess. III, De Fide et Ratione, 
can. I. Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 
““ Si quis dixerit, in reve- 
latione divina nulla vera et propria 
dicta mysteria contineri, sed wnt- 
versa fidei dogmata posse per ra- 


tionem rite excultam e naturalibus 
principiis intelligi et demonstrart: 
anathema sit —If any one shall say 
that in divine Revelation there are 
no mysteries, truly and properly so 
called, but that all the doctrines of 
faith can be understood and demon- 


196 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA 


Believing Christians have always looked upon the dogma 
of the Trinity as the most important and fundamental, 
as well as the highest and most profound of all revealed 
mysteries, 


2. THE INDEMONSTRABILITY OF THE BLESSED. 
_ Trrnity.—The foregoing truths afford us a safe 
criterion for properly estimating the manifold 
philosophical considerations which Scholastic 
theology employs to clear up the mystery, and 
especially for judging at their true worth the 
extremely audacious attempts at demonstration 
which have from time to time been made by non- 
Scholastic theologians. 


a) The Schoolmen employed various analogues from 
both nature and reason to show forth the vestiges (ves- 
- tigia) and the likeness (imago) of the Holy Trinity i in the 
created universe. In doing this they did not mean to 
‘construct a cogent argument, but merely to _ supply 
supernaturally enlightened reason with some auxiliary 
_ conceptions, whereby it might attain to a deeper under- 
_ standing of the revealed mystery.* It is in this sense 
that the Provincial Council of Cologne (A.D. 1860) 
teaches: “ Argumentis etiam quibusdam, non quidem 
necessariis et evidentibus demonstrare, sed congruts 
tantum et quasi similitudinibus illustrare et aliquatenus 
manifestare mysteria ratio potest, quemadmodum Patres 
et S. Augustinum prae ceteris circa SS. Trinitatis myste- 


strated from natural principles, by Sanctum; ... quidquid ultra quae- 
properly cultivated reason; let him ~ritur, non enuntiatur, non attingi- 
be anathema.” Cfr. St. Hilary, De tur, non tenetur.”’ 

Trinit., II, 5: “ Poswit naturae 6 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 1a. 
nomina Patrem, Filium, Spiritum qu. 45, art. 7; qu. 93, art. 8, 


ITS INDEMONSTRABILITY 197 


rium versatos esse videmus— Reason cannot indeed 
demonstrate the mysteries [of faith] by necessary and 
evident arguments; but it can illustrate, and in a 
measure manifest them by congruous arguments and, 
as it were, by similitudes, after the manner in which 
the Fathers, and especially St. Augustine, treated of the 
mystery of the Blessed Trinity.”’* Following the lead 
of St. Augustine, Scholastic theology enlisted philosophy 
in the service of the dogma, not indeed with a view 
to demonstrating what is in itself incomprehensible, 
but in order to enable the human mind to perceive 
the precise nature of the mystery which it is asked to 
believe. St. Augustine's comparison of the two divine 
_ Processions with human ~self- “knowledge and self- love 
stands.as.a. perpetual monument to the speculative genius 
of the great Bishop of Hippo. “ Et ‘est quaedam wmago 
Trinitatis, ipsa mens et notitia eius, quod est proles ews 
ac de se ipsa verbum etus et amor tertius; et haec tria 
unum atque una substantia. Nec minor proles, dum 
tantam se novit mens, quanta est; nec minor amor, dum 
tantum se diligit, quantum novit et quantus est — And 
so there is a kind of image of the Trinity in the mind 
itself, and the knowledge of it, which is its offspring 
and its word concerning itself, and love as a third, and 
these three are one and one substance. Neither is the 
offspring less, since the mind knows itself according to 
the measure of its own being; nor is the love less, since 
it loves itself according to the measure both of its own 
knowledge and of its own being.” * Like Augustine, 
the orthodox Scholastics always subordinated their 
Trinitarian speculations to the revealed teaching as 
defined by the Church, never once trenching on the 


Tilita 1s Capi Oe Collect. Poe 8S. August., De Trinit., IX, 12, 
sis, t. V, p. 280. 18. (Haddan’s translation, p. 240.) 


198 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA 


mystery embodied in the dogma. From _ this state- 
ment we need not even except Richard of St. Victor, 
who plumed himself upon having found “rationés ne- 
cessarias”” for the Blessed Trinity. His “ necessary fea- 
sons” are mere congruities, which can claim no value 
except on the assumption that the mystery is already 
- revealed.® 

b) There is, however, a class of divines who left the 
_ safe path blazed out by the Fathers and the School- 
men, and presumed to demonstrate the mystery of the 
Trinity by arguments, more or less bold, drawn from 
unaided human reason. Beginning with Raymond 
Lully, down to Anton Giinther, these audacious innova- 
tors invariably ended by counterfeiting the concept of 
the Blessed Trinity instead of clearing it up. Of Lully, 
Ruiz says that his demonstrations are the dreams of 
a feeble and delirious brain.t° Marcus Mastrofini elabo- 
rated a “mathematical demonstration,’ which, based as 
it was upon a wrong conception of the infinite, proved 
as derogatory to the dogma as the Tritheistic teaching 
of Gunther, which Joseph Kleutgen, S. J., so effectively 
refuted in his immortal work Die Theologie der Vor- 
zeit.” Lost in the mazes of Hegelian Pantheism Giin- 
ther evolved the Trinity as “thesis, antithesis, and syn- 
thesis,’ or as “subject, object, and identity,’ from the 
“elements of self-consciousness,”— a theory which is 
plainly tritheistic, because it supposes “a triplicated exist- 
ence of one and the same Divine Substance.” Rosmini 
pantheistically identified the Three Divine Persons with 


9 Cfr. S. Thom., De Potent., qu. capitis.” See also Vasquez, In S. 
OF fart. 6.27 Rich." va5.S.' Viet, De Theol., 1a, disp. 133. 


Lrinvee tf a Lek, Sh Lakes Bs 11 Refuted by Franzelin, De Deo 
10 De Trinit., disp. 41, sect. 1:  Trino, thes. 18. 
“ Demonstrationes [eius]  ridiculae 12 See especially Vol. I, 2nd ed., 


sunt, deliria somniantis et male sani pp. 399 sqq., Minster 1867. 


THE DOGMA NOT UNREASONABLE 199 


“the highest modes of being, viz.: subjectivity, objec- 
tivity, and sanctity,” or “ reality, ideality, and morality.” 
Both systems have been condemned as _ un-Catholic, 
Giinther’s by Pius IX, Rosmini’s by Leo XIII." 

c) Certain Rationalists have attempted to explain the 
Christian dogma of the Trinity as the product of purely 
natural reflection on the part of pre-Christian philoso- 
phers and religionists. Having emptied it of its super- 
natural content, they profess to find its germs and 
prototypes in the philosophy of Plato and the Neo-Platon- 
ists, in Philo’s doctrine of the Logos, in the writings 
of the legendary Mercury Trismegistus, and, lastly, in 
the day-dreams of Kabbalistic theosophy. But all this 
is rank sophistry. As a matter of fact the Christian 
Trinity is diametrically opposed alike to the Platonic 
triad (God, ideas, and: world), to the Hindoo triad 
_ (Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva), and to the Chinese Tao 
trinity of heaven, earth, and man. Indeed, none of the 
so-called ethnic trinities can be shown to possess more 
than a purely external resemblance to the revealed Trin- 
ity of the Christian dispensation.** 


3. How Human Reason Can DEFEND THE 
DoGMA OF THE BLESSED TRINITY AGAINST IN- 
FIDEL OBJECTIONS.—Though it cannot explain 
the mystery, human reason is able to refute the 
objections of those who aver that it is impossible 
or absurd. To do this effectively it 1s not nec- 


18 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En- stelodami LOO7 HEE ely lal eine 
chiridion, nn. 1655, 1915. On Ros- Trinity, pp. 31 sqq., New York 1910; 


minian Ontologism see Pohle-Preuss, and also E. Krebs, Der Logos als 
God: His Knowability, Essence, Heiland im ersten Jahrhundert, 
and Attributes, pp. 119 sqq. Freiburg 1910, and J. Lebreton, Les 


14 Cfr; G. van Noort, De Deo Origines du Dogme de la Trinité, 
Uno et Trino, pp. 193 sqq., Am- pp. 1-207, Paris 1910. 


200 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA | 


essary to demonstrate that the Trinity is posi- 
tively conceivable and therefore real. It will 
suffice to show the hollowness of the various 
objections that are urged against the dogma. 


All the objections which heresy and infidelity have 
excogitated against the mystery of the Blessed Trin- 
ity, from the days of Celsus down to those of David 
Friedrich Strauss, Christian philosophy has triumphantly 
refuted as fallacious. We will mention only a few. 
Schopenhauer says that “Strictly speaking, a mystery 
is a dogma that is manifestly absurd.” *° This “ dictum 
ex cathedra” is meaningless. Faith is not related to 
reason as absurdity is related to sound sense, but 
as truth is related to truth, and we know that all 
truths are derived from the same original source, viz.: 
God Himself. Strauss declares that “He who has 
sworn to uphold the ‘ Quicunque,’ has renounced the 
laws of human thought.” *® But where is the law of 
right thinking that contradicts the possibility of the 
Trinity? It would not, we fancy, be a difficult under- 
taking to show how those who deny the Trinity twist 
the rules of logic and rely on syllogisms that are one 
and all affected by the deadly malady of “ quaternio 
terminorum.” It is equally wrong and absurd to allege 
that the dogma of the Blessed Trinity is based on an 
impossible mathematical formula, namely 31. This 
would indeed be the case if the dogma spelled, “Three 
Gods are one God.” But the concept of “ Three Divine 
Persons in one Divine Nature” involves no such intrinsic 
contradiction. It leaves the fundamental metaphysical 
principles of identity, contradiction, and excluded mid- 


15 Parerga und Paralipomena, II, 16 Glaubenslehre, Vol. I, p. 460, 
p. 385, Leipzig 1874. Tubingen 1840, 


THE DOGMA NOT UNREASONABLE © 201 


dle in full possession of the field, nay, it postulates them 
as a necessary logical condition of “ Trinitas in unitate,” 
because without these fundamental laws the dogma 
could not stand. These considerations show how utterly 
groundless is the charge brought by Adolph Harnack 
when he says: “ Arianism, too, seems to us moderns 
to bristle with contradictions; but it was reserved to 
Athanasius to achieve a complete contradictio in ad- 
Jeet: eat 


Retaivcaht Benen Comment. in S. Theol., 
1; Suarez, De Trinit., I, c. 11-12; *Ruiz, De Trinit., disp. 41- 
43; Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 18-20, Romae 1881; Chr. 
Pesch, S. J., Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. II, 2nd ed., pp. 262 sqq., Fri- 
burgi 1906; Heinrich, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. IV, §$§ 211-212, 
Mainz 1885; Riittimann, Das Geheimnis der hl. Dreieinigkeit, 
Lindau 1887; Scheeben, Die Mysterien des Christentums, 2nd 
ed. (by Kipper), pp. 17 sqq., Freiburg 1898; Bayle, Diction- 
naire, s. v. “Pyrrhonisme”; Faust. Socinus, Christ. Religionis 
Brevissima Institutio, in the Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, 
tom. I, pp. 652 sqq. Irenopoli 1656; Anton Gunther, Janus- 
képfe, Euristheus und Herakles, Lydia, Vorschule; against him 
Kleutgen, Theologie der Vorzeit, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 399 sqq., 
Miinster 1867; J. Doderlein, Philosophia Divina: Gottes Drei- 
einigkeit bewiesen an Kraft, Raum und Zeit, Erlangen 1889; 
J. Lebreton, Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinité, Paris 1910; 
F. J. Hall, The Trinity, pp. 31 sqq., 156 sqq., New York Ig10; 
J. H. Newman, An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent, Ch. 
V¥, 822: 


1a, Qty 32, art: 


17 Dogmengeschichte, Vol. II, 3rd 
ed., p. 219, Freiburg 1894. Cfr. H. 
Schell, Das Problem des Geistes mit 
besonderer Beriicksichtigung des 
dreieinigen Gottes und der biblischen 


Schopfungsidee, 2nd ed., Wurzburg 
1898; J. Uhlmann, Die Persénlich- 
keit Gottes und thre modernen Geg- 
ner, Freiburg 1906. 


SHOTION 2 


GENERATION BY MODE OF UNDERSTANDING AND 
SPIRATION BY MODE OF WILL 


I. THE GENERATION OF THE SON By MopE oF 
UNDERSTANDING.—According to the unanimous 
teaching of Fathers and theologians the prop- 
osition that the Father generates His Divine Son 
by mode of understanding, while not an article 
of faith, is a sure theological conclusion which is 
firmly rooted in Sacred Scripture, and cannot be 
denied without temerity.’ ° x 


a) The Bible reveals the Second Person of the Divine 
Trinity not only as “ Filius unigemtus,’ (1. e., the Only- 
begotten Son), but likewise as “Verbum” or “ Logos” 
(1. e., the Word of God). The only meaning we can 
attach to the term “Verbum Dei” is: Immanent ter- 
minus of the knowledge of the Father. Consequently 
divine Generation must signify the knowledge of the 
Father bringing forth His Son by an act of the un- 
derstanding. The purely intellectual character of the act 
of divine Generation may also be inferred from those 
Scriptural texts which represent the Son of God as the 
“image? of the Father,” or as “begotten Wisdom.” 
Like “ Logos,” these terms define the mode of generation 

1 Prominent among those who denied it were Durandus and Hirscher. 


2Imago, elkwy, 
202 


THE GENERATION OF THE SON 203 


as purely spiritual, or, more specifically, as intellectual. 
It is in this sense that the Fathers, so far as they touch 
upon the subject at all, interpret the Scriptural teaching 
- concerning the “ Logos.” Thus St. Gregory of Nazian- 
 zus tersely declares: ‘‘ The Son is called Logos, because 
_ His relation to the Father is the same as that of the 
., [immanent] word to the intellect.”* And St. Basil: 
~ “Why Word? In order that it may become manifest 
.. that it proceedeth from the intellect. Why Word? Be- 
- cause it is the likeness of the Begetter, which in itself 
' reflects the whole Begetter, even as our word [concept] 
~ reflects the likeness of our whole thought.”+ St. Augus- 
' tine goes into the matter even more deeply. He says: 
“Tamquam seipsum dicens Pater genuit Verbum sibt 
aequale per omnia; non enim seipsum integre perfec- 
teque dixisset, st aliquid minus aut amplius esset in emus 
Verbo, quam in tpso — Accordingly, as though uttering 
Himself, the Father begat the Word equal to Himself 
‘in all things; for He would not have uttered Himself 
\wholly and perfectly, if there were in His Word any- 
thing more or less than in Himself.” > | 
b) A theological reason may be found in the cir- 
cumstance that the Processions in the Godhead are 
only conceivable as purely spiritual and immanent vital 
processes.° God is a pure Spirit, and there are but 
two known modes of purely spiritual operation, 2. e., 
understanding and willing. Our own mind, which 
is in itself infecund and derives its knowledge of 
generation altogether from the realm of organic life, 
can scarcely form an idea of the eminent fecundity of 


# 30r. 30, apud Migne, P. G., 407. Many additional Patristic 


XXXVI, 1209. texts in Petavius, De Trinitate, II, 
4 Hom., 16, 3. TLS Wolo esa de 

» 5St. August., De Trinitate, XV, 8:Cirs (Si thom), WSs olneol tay 

14, 23. Haddan’s translation, p. Cus 27 artic, ; 


14 


204. DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA 


the Infinite Intellect, and is consequently inclined to 
conceive the operation of the divine understanding and 
will as something exclusively essential and absolute. 
, But once assured by Revelation of the existence of two 
Processions within the Godhead (generatio and spiratio), 
_we cannot but connect the one with the intellect and 
‘the other with the will. Now we know that divine 
Generation depends on the intellect rather than the will, 
because the Son of God has been revealed to us as 
“ Logos.” 

This immanent process in the Godhead naturally 
points to the most perfect analogue which the Blessed 
‘Trinity has in the intellectual life of man. According to 
the teaching of St. Augustine,” man’s self-knowledge cor- 
responds to the process of divine Generation, his’ self- 
love to the process of divine Spiration. The human Ego 
unfolds itself, as it were, in three directions. First it 
duplicates itself in its self-consciousness and, without 
destroying the identity of the Ego-substance, opposes 
the thinking Ego to the Ego thought. The thinking 
Ego, as the terminus a quo, represents the begetting 
Father, while the thought Ego, as the terminus ad quem, 
illustrates the Son. Out of the reciprocal comprehension 
and interpenetration of both— despite the opposition 
existing between them, they are not really distinct — 
there spontaneously burgeons forth self-love, which, as 
the fundamental law of the human will, completes the 
immanent spiritual process and furnishes a faint image 
of the Holy Ghost. In thus trying to bring the mystery 
nearer to our understanding, we must not, however, lose 
sight of the fact that no real trinity is possible in the 
spiritual life of the creature, for the obvious reason that 


7 Supra, p. 197. 


7 


Ja 


THEVSPIRATION OF THE HOLY GHOST (205 


the two intrinsic termini of self-knowledge and self-love 
ret not hypostases but mere accidents.* 


eanyales go eG OF THE Hoty GHOST BY 
Mopbe oF WILL.—In arguing that the Spiration 
of the Holy Ghost takes place by way of volition, 
some theologians content themselves with the 
argumentum exclusionis. The Generation of 
the Son having been assigned to the intellect, 
they say, there remains only the will to account 
for the origination of the Holy Ghost. These 
writers seem to overlook the fact that Revelation 
furnishes positive as well as negative proofs in — 
support of this doctrine. 


a) Under the so-called Law of Appropriations, no 
external operations can be predicated of any Divine Per- 


‘son except such as are intrinsically related to that par- 


ticular Person’s hypostatic character. This constitutes 
the Appropriations a sure criterion for determining the 
personal character of each of the Divine Persons. 


» The attributes of omnipotence and creation are appro- 


 priated to the Father, for the reason that, in Tegard to 
t Saleh els ad intra, He is at the same time dpyy avapxos 


and dpyy tas dpyys. In the same way the works of wis- 
dom are appropriated to the Son, because He is Hypo- 
static Wisdom. If, then, the works of love are at- 
tributed to the Holy Ghost, it must be because He 1s love, 
because He proceeds. from.love as His principle or 
source ; — not, it is true, from that essential Love which 
is common to all three Divine Persons,® but from the 

8 Cfr. S. Thom., Contr. Gent., IV, SO Trevis alas 8: “He that 


Il. loveth not, knoweth not God: for 
God is charity.” 


peree 


. 206 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA 


reciprocal notional love of Father and Son, of which the 
immanent product is Hypostatic Charity, «. e., the Per- 
son of the Holy Ghost. Love being the fundamental 
affection of the will,° the Holy Ghost must proceed 
from the Father and the Son roy mode of will (per 
modum voluntatis ). 

b) The fact that Holy Scripture attributes the proper 
name “ Spiritus” and the epithet “Sanctus” to the 
Holy Ghost, will serve to confirm this conclusion. As 
a personal appellation the term “Holy Spirit,” like 
“ Rather’ and “ Son,” must be taken in a relative sense, 
as “spiratus” or “spiratione productus.” In its abso- 
lute sense “Spirit” is predicable of the Godhead as 
such. Cfr. John IV, 24: “God is a spirit.’ But in a 
nature which, like God’s, is purely spiritual, Spiration, 
as opposed to intellectual Generation, can signify noth- 
“ing elge than an act of the will. This becomes still 
clearer when we consider that Spiration is an analogous 
term derived from the realm of nature, in which breath or 
“wind is indtied with motive power, “which in the spiritual 
Yealm has its counterpart in the operation of the will. 
If, therefore, the Holy Ghost is called “ breath of 
God” (halitus Dei), the reason is that Father and 
Son breathe the Holy Ghost per modum voluntatis. 
Since “the emission of the breath from the heart, 
notably in the act of kissing, gives a most real expres- 
sion to the tendency of love towards intimate and real 
communion of life and an outpouring of soul into 
soul,’ 21 we can well understand why St. Ambrose, St. 
- Jerome, and St. Pesan of Clairvaux ventured to refer 
to the Holy Ghost as “ osculum Patris et Hie 


10 Cfr. S. Thom., Contr. Gent., 12 Cfr. also St, Bonaventure: 
LNG on9. _ © Spirare in spiritualibus solius est 
11 Scheeben. Cfr. Wilhelm-Scan- amoris; et quontam amor potest 


nell’s Manual, I, 331-332. spirari recte et ordinate, et sic est 


ee 


THE SPIRATION OF THE HOLY GHOST 207 


Analyzing the epithet “ Sanctus,” we find that it does 
not designate the absolute sanctity of the Blessed Trinity 
as such, but, relatively, the personal character of the 
Third Person; in other words it is synonymous with 
“ pbrocedens ex principio sancto.” Now, sanctity is an 
attribute of the will, as wisdom is an attribute of the 
intellect. Divine sanctity formally consists in “ God’s 
love for Himself.” 22 Hence ‘ Holy Ghost” is synony- 
mous with “ Hypostatic Love.” The Eleventh Synod 
of Toledo (A.D. 675) formally identifies sanctity with 
love when it says: “Spiritus Sanctus... sumul ab 
utrisque processisse monstratur, quia caritas sive sancti- 
tas amborum esse agnoscitur — The Holy Ghost is shown 


‘to proceed from both, as He is acknowledged to be the 


love or sanctity of both.”’** The Fathers express them- 
selves in a similar manner. Thus St. Augustine says: 
“Cum Pater sit spiritus et Filius spiritus, et Pater 
sanctus et Filius sanctus, proprie tamen tpse vocatur 
Spiritus Sanctus, tamquam  sanctitas substantialis et 
consubstantialis amborum— Though the Father is a 
spirit and the Son is a spirit, and though the Father is 
holy and the Son is holy, yet He [the Third Person] 
is properly called Holy Spirit, because He is the sub- 


- stantial and consubstantial holiness of both [the Father 


and the Son].” * 
‘The Greek Fathers compare the act of divine Spiration 


to “a special form of substantial emanation, analogous to 


purus, ideo persona illa, quae est 
amor, non tantum dicitur Spiritus, 
sed Spiritus Sanctus —To breathe 
in matters spiritual belongs solely 
to love; and because love can be 
rightly and properly breathed, and 
thus is pure; therefore the Person 
who is Love, is not only called 
Spirit, but Holy Spirit.” Com- 


ment. in Quatuor Libros Sent., I, 
dist.; %0,\.qu.3. 

18 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, 
Knowability, Essence, 
butes, pp. 256 sqq. 

14 Denzinger-Bannwart, 
dion, n. 277. 

15 De Civitate Dei, XI, 24. 


God: His 
and Attri- 


Enchiri- 


208 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA 


the emanation which takes place in plants side by side 
with generation, and is effected by the plants themselves 
and their products, viz., the emission of the vital _sap or 
spirit of life in the form of fluid oily substances in a liquid 
or ethereal state, such as balsam and incense, wine and 
oil, and especially the odor or perfume of the plant, which 
is at the same time an ethereal oil and the biveth of 
the: plant.”” 26 

c) The, epithet, “ gift of God” (aga ae aa 
@cot), which, following the lead of. Sacred “Scripture, 
many pects ascribe as. ac personal attribute. nO the 
cession. Ne gift supposes as its principle love of pure 
benevolence on the part of the giver, and consequently 
the Holy Ghost, considered in His personal attribute of 
“donum Dei,” cannot originate in the Intellect, but 
must spring from Love, that is, from the Divine Will. 
St. Thomas explains this luminously as follows: “ Do- 
num proprie est datio irreddibilis, id est, quod non 
datur intentione retributionis et sic importat gratuitam 
donationem. Ratio autem gratuitae donationis est amor; 
ideo enim damus gratis alicui aliquid, quia volumus ei 
bonum. ... Unde cum Spiritus Sanctus procedat ut 
amor, .. . procedit in ratione dom primi—A gift, 
properly speaking, is something given without expecta- 
tion of a quid pro quo; but the reason why one gives 
freely is love; for if we give something to some one 
without expecting an equivalent, it is because we wish 
him well. ... Therefore, since the Holy Ghost  pro- 
ceeds by mode of love. . . . He proceeds after the man- 

16 Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. I, p. Serap., 3, n. 3: ‘“ This salve is the 


870 =(Wilhelm-Scannell’s Manual, breath of the Son, the perfume and 
Vol. I, p. 329). Cfr. Athanas., Ad the figure of the Son.” 


THE SPIRATION OF THE HOLY GHOST 209 


ner of the first gift.”’7 St. Augustine says: “ Non 
dicitur Verbum Dei nisi Filius, nec donum Dei nist 
Spiritus Sanctus — The Son and none other is called 
the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and none other 
the gift of God.’*® He founds upon this distinction 
the thesis that the Holy Ghost cannot be identical 
with the Son: “ Extit non quomodo natus, sed quomodo 
datus, et ideo non dicitur Filius — For the Spirit came 
forth not as born, but as given; and so He is not called 
Ste unt 


3. THE EssENTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 
GENERATION AND SPIRATION.— There is be- 
tween Generation and Spiration a marked dis- 
tinction, similar to the one between intellect and 
will. ! +f) 


“ a) To enable the human mind to penetrate as deeply 
as possible into the sublime mystery of the Blessed 
Trinity, the Schoolmen raised the question: In how far 
can the notional cognition of the Father be conceived 
as generation in the strict sense of the term? Can it be 
said that “ knowing” is synonymous with “ begetting ”? 
Modern authorities on the philosophy of language have 
made the interesting discovery that, in the parent lan- 
guage from which the Indo-Germanic family derives its 
descent (viz.: Sanskrit), GEN is the root of two dis- 
tinct word-groups, which denote “knowing” and “ be- 
getting.” Compare, @. 9. in Greek, ylyvoya and yevvdaw 
with yyvdoxw; in Latin, gigno with cognosco. “ Con- 
ceptus” may signify either “concept” (idea) or “ con-' 
_ ception” in the physiological sense. Our English word 


17S. Theol., 1a, qu. 38, art. 2. 19 De Trinit., V, 14, 15. 
18 De Trinit., XV, 17, 29- 


210 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA 


“conception,” too, is used to describe both the act or 
process of forming an idea or notion of a thing, and the 
impregnation of an ovum. In the Semitic family of 
languages these two notions are also closely related and 
expressed by the same verb; cfr., e. g., “ Adam vero 
cognovit YI" uxorem suam Hevam— And Adam knew 


Eve his wife.” ?° A still surer way of arriving at the 
point we are trying to make, is to analyze the concepts 
underlying these various terms. Generation is defined as 
“origo viventis a principio vivente coniuncto in simili- 
tudinem naturae ex vi ipsius productionis,” ? which may 
be rendered into English as follows: Generation is the 
production of one living being by another living being, 
by communication of substance, resulting in a similarity » 
of nature in progenitor and progeny wi productionis, 
1. €., from the very mode of production.2?, The concept of 
generation, therefore, contains four essential marks: (1) 
The origin of one living being from another living be- 
ing. Consequently the inanimate exudation of plants 
and animals, the growth of hair and nails in corpses, etc., 
cannot be called “generation.” (2) The vital process 
_of nature by which that which is generated proceéds 
from the substance of the generative-principle. Hence 
such processes as the creation of the universe and the 
origin of Eve cannot be called. ;*" generation.” (3) 
Similarity of nature in the being which is begotten and 
the being which begets. This eliminates spontaneous 
generation, so-called, or heterogeny. (4) An immanent 
tendency in the progeny to resemble its progenitor. 
Hence, e. g., the likeness which a child bears to his 

20 Gen,. IV, 1. 22 Cfr. Wilhelm-Scannell, Manual 


20 Cir SS!) Thoms Sid neols i ivas of Catholic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 
GU 27 arlenz, 102 sq. 


GENERATION AND SPIRATION 211 


father is not accidental, but results from the act of 
generation itself. 

b) The notional understanding of God the Father pos- 
sesses all of these distinctive momenta. In the first 
place, the begetting Father and the begotten Son are 
both living persons, identical in nature with the absolute 
divine life. The communication of life takes place in the 
vital mode of nature, as the Divine Nature itself consti- 
tutes the “ principium quo” and the Father the “ princi- 
pium quod” of generation. Thirdly, both Sacred Scrip- 
ture and Tradition attest that the Son is the most perfect 

likeness of the Father and His most adequate utteraitte. 
“And since this absolute essential likeness is rooted in 
the very mode of origination itself,.vig.: an assimilative 
tendency in the notional understanding of the Father, 
the fourth condition, too, is verified. This last-men- 
tioned note is by far the most important, for it 
alone ultimately differentiates _ divine. Generation from 
Spiration:\, \1ts)1s peculiar to the act of understand- 
ing, and to that act alone, that it tends to assimilate 
the object of knowledge with the knower, and thereby 
elevates even the lowest and basest object of cognition, 
(ec. g. matter), to the spiritual plane of the cognizing 
principle. Thus the concept “tree,” for example, is as 
spiritual as the conceiving intellect itself. Hence the 
well-known Scholastic axiom: “Cognitum est m co- 
gnoscente non per modum cogniti, sed per modum co- 
gnoscentis — Whatever is received by the intellect, is re- 
ceived in the manner, not of the thing known, but of 
the knowing intellect.” Volition or love, on the other 
hand, is ecstatic in its effect, that is, it transports the 
lover as it were beyond himself and transforms him 
into the object of his affection. It is for this rea- 
son that the intrinsic value of love increases or di- 


212 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA 


minishes in proportion to the value or dignity of its 
object; which explains the ennobling influence of the 
love of God as the supreme good, and the degrading 
effects of sinful love. St. Thomas describes the differ- 
ence between understanding and willing with his usual 
clearness as follows: “‘ There is this difference between 
the intellect and the will, that the intellect is actuated 
because the object known is in the intellect according to 
its likeness. The will, on the other hand, becomes actu- 
ated, not because it contains within itself any likeness 
of the object willed, but because it has a certain in- 
clination towards that object.” ?* 

c) In respect of the second mode of procession, 1. e., 
Spiration, it must first of all be observed that the Holy 
Ghost, too, is a living Person, who derives His origin 
from a living Spirator; that He has His essence by 
a vital process from the Divine Substance itself; and, 
lastly, that by virtue of His consubstantiality (éuoovcia) 
He is a perfectly adequate likeness of the two Divine 
Persons by whom He is breathed. The fourth and dis- 
criminative mark of generation — namely an immanent 
essential tendency or inclination to produce a being of 
like nature — does not, however, apply to Spiration. For 
since Spiration is not. understanding but love, it lacks that 
assimilative tendency which is the essential note of gen- 
eration. Consequently Spiration is not Generation.** 


23 “‘ Haec est differentia inter in- art. 4,ad 7: “ Cum Filius procedat 


tellectum et voluntatem, quod intel- 
lectus sit in actu per hoc, quod res 
intellecta est in intellectu secundum 
suam similitudinem. Voluntas au- 
tem fit in actu, non per hoc quod 
aliqua similitudo voliti sit in volun- 
tate, sed ex hoc quod voluntas habet 
quandam inclinationem in rem voli- 
Fam. i (SV Dheol., 4a; qu. 27, arte 4, 

24 Cfr, S. Thom., De Pot., qu. 2, 


per modum verbi, ex ipsa ratione 
suae processionis habet, ut procedat 
in similem speciem generantis, et sic 
quod sit Filius et eius processio ge- 
neratio dicatur. Non autem Spiritus 
Sanctus hoc habet ratione suae pro- 
cessionis, sed magis ex proprietate 
divinae naturae: quia in Deo non 
potest esse aliquid, quod non sit 
Deus; et sic ipse amor divinus Deus 


SPECULATIVE} PROBLEMS 213 


d) From all of which it is plain that there can be 
in the Godhead but one Son and one Holy Ghost. The 
Logos-Son, as the adequately exhaustive Word of the 
Father, utters the Father’s infinite substance so per- 
fectly that the generative power of the Paternal In- 
tellect completely exhausts itself, and there is no room 
left for a second, third, etc., Son or Logos.. Similarly, 
Father and Son mutually love each other in a man- 
ner so absolutely perfect that the Holy Ghost repre- 
sents the infinite, and therefore exhaustive, utterance of 
their mutual love. This cuts the ground from under 
the feet of the Macedonians, who sophistically charged 
the Catholic dogma of the Trinity with absurdity by 
alleging that it implies the existence of a divine grand- 
father, a divine grandchild, and so forth.*® 


4. Two SPECULATIVE PRoBLEMS.—There is a 
subtle and purely speculative question as to 
what are the objects of notional, in contradis- 
tinction to essential, understanding and love. 
Is the Logos merely the utterance of the divine 
self-knowledge? or is He also the expression of 
God’s knowledge of His creatures? And fur- 
ther: Is the Holy Ghost the personal expression + 
of God’s love for Himself only? or is He also the 
expression of God’s love for the created universe? 


a) The problem involved in the first question must 
be solved along these lines: If it is true that all essen- 
tial knowledge, and hence the very nature of God, would 
cease to be if God had no divine self-comprehension 


est, inquantum quidem divinus, non 28 Cfr. S. Thom., S. Theol., 1a, 
inquantum amor.” Gu. 130; attun2. 


‘W214 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA 


(cognitio comprehensiva sui) embracing His Essence 
and attributes, or no knowledge of all the possibles 
(scientia simplicis intelligentiae),2° among which must 
be reckoned all created things before their realization; 
then the notional cognition of the Father must have its 
essential and necessary object chiefly in these two kinds 
of divine knowledge. For whatever is essential and ab- 
solutely necessary to the very being of the Godhead, can- 
not play a purely subordinate and unessential part in 
the generation of the Logos. Theologians all admit this 
principle in the abstract; but in explaining and inter- 
preting it there is no real agreement among the different 
schools beyond the proposition that the Logos proceeds 
from the notional cognition of the primary and formal 
object of the Divine Intellect, vizg.: the Essence and at- 
tributes of God.” ce ie 
Extreme views on the subject were held by Scotus and 
Gregory of Valentia. Scotus limits the notional under- 
standing’ by which the F ather begets the Logos, ‘strictly 
to the absolute essence of God. According to Gregory 
of Valentia it includes as a necessarily co-operating 


factor the contingent universe with all its creatures, / 


Both are wrong. Scotus forgets that one of the es- 
sential factors in the production of the Logos is a 
knowledge of all possibles as well as of the three 
Persons of the Blessed Trinity. Gregory of Valentia 


does not distinguish with sufficient clearness between 


God’s necessary and His free knowledge. The con- 


. tingent and accidental world of creatures, which un- 


doubtedly forms one of the objects of divine omniscience, 
must assuredly be reflected in the Hypostatic Concep- 
26 Cir. Pohle-Preuss, God: Wik) 27 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, op. cit., pp. 


Knowability, Essence, and Attri- © 338 sq. 
butes, pp. 329 saq. 


SPECULATIVE PROBLEMS 215 


tion or Logos, as object of the “ scientia libera”’; but 
in such manner that the adequacy and perfection as the 
Logos would suffer no impairment even if the created 
universe did not exist. Indeed it is through the eternally 
pre-existing Logos that all existing things were made.” 
Scotus, on principle, excludes from the paternal act 
of Generation all creatural being, even the purely 
possible. Puteanus_holds_ that Eatery, Vasquez that 
Paternity and Filiation, and Turrianus that, besides 
these, passive Spiration is comprised as a supplementary 
object in that notional act by which the Father utters 
Himself adequately in His “ Word.” The Thomists 
extend the scope of God’s notional understanding to 
the whole realm of His essential knowledge. St. 
Augustine taught that the essence of the Logos com- 
prises precisely the same wisdom that is comprehended 
within the essential knowledge of the Triune God,” and 
St. Thomas expressly declares: “ The Father, by un- 
derstanding Himself, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, 
and all other things contained within His knowledge, 
conceives the Word, and thus the entire Trinity and 
every created being are uttered in the Word.” ® ~The 
Angelic Doctor, as Billuart *! points out, in this passage 
does not refer to the actually existing: creatures, but 
only to the purely possibles (as objects of the scientia 
simplicis intelligentiae), in as much as they are re- 
flected in the world of divine ideas as necessary, not 
as free objects of divine knowledge. As free objects 
of divine knowledge they are, de facto, also contained 


28. Cir john 1.35010; Trinitas Verbo ‘ dicatur, et etiam 
29 Supra, p. 203. omnis creatura.”’ S. Theol., 1a, qu. 
0 ‘‘ Pater enim intelligendo se et CIEE REyb In Gane aKa Bizet 
-Filium et Spiritum Sanctum et om- 31 De SS. Trinitatis Mysterio, 
nia alia, quae eius scientia continen- dissy) 5) art. 3. hi 


tur, concipit Verbum, ut sic tota 


216 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA 

in the “ Word of God,” but only concomitanter et per 
accidens. “ Quia Pater principaliter dicit se,’ observes 
St. Thomas, “generando Verbum suum, et ex conse- 
guenti dicit creaturas [existentes|, ideo principaliter et 
quasi per se Verbum refertur ad Patrem, sed ex conse- 
quenti et quasi per accidens refertur ad creaturam; ac- 
cidit enim Verbo, ut per ipsum creatura dicatur — Since 
the Father, in begetting His Word, utters Himself prin- 
cipally, and the [existing] creatures “incidentally, the 
Word is principally, and as. it were per Se; referred to 
the Father, and only consequently, and as it were by 
accident, to the creature; for it is only by accident that 
the creattiré is uttered through the Word.” * 

St. Augustine says: ‘‘ The Father spake nothing that 
He spake not in the Son. For by speaking in the Son 
what He was about to do through the Son, He begat 
the Son Himself by whom He should make all things.” ** 
This passage does not contradict what we have asserted, 
because the archetype and exemplar of the universe about 
to be created was eternally present in the Logos as the 
living concept of creation.** 

Another difficulty has been formulated thus: The 
Logos owes His existence to the generative knowledge 
of the Father; consequently He cannot be conceived as 
existing prior to the act of paternal Generation. Simi- 
larly, the Person of the Holy Ghost does not exist log- 
ically without the Father and the Son, and consequently 


32 S. Thom., De Vertiate, qu. 4, 
art. 4. 

33 “‘ Nilil dixit Deus, quod non 
dixit in Filio. Dicendo enim in 
Filio, quod facturus erat per Filium, 
ipsum Filium genutt, per quem 
faceret omnia.”’ Tract. in Ioa., 21, 
n. 4. Browne’s translation, Homi- 


lies on the Gospel according to St. 
John, Vol. I, p. 327. 

34 For a more detailed develop- 
ment of this thought we must refer 
the reader to the dogmatic treatise 
on God the Author of Nature and 
the Stpernatural, which forms the — 


“third” volume of the present series 


of dogmatic text-books, 


SPECULATIVE PROBLEMS 217 


the Holy Ghost cannot contribute to the production of 
the Logos. 

This difficulty, which is considered unsolvable by some 
divines, arises from confusing temporal succession with 
succession as to origin. The Three Divine Persons are 
“absolutely coeternal. Hence the Logos ae the Holy 
Ghost, despite their “ posterioritas originis,’ can form 
essential ingredients of the Father’s intellectual act of 
Generation from everlasting. For the rest, as ‘Suarez 
justly remarks, “ Potest esse prior existentia visionis, 
quam ret visae; nam si Deus potest intueri futuras 
creaturas prius duratione, immo aeternitate, quam ipsae 
existant, cur non poterit Deus ut sic videre personas 
prius ratione vel origine, quam producantur? — A vision 
may exist prior to the object seen; for if God is able 
to envisage future creatures temporally and even eter- 
nally before they exist, why should He not also be able 
to see the Persons in [their] relation or origin before 
they are produced?” 35 OU Ree an naan 

b) Following out.the analogy, it may be asked: Which 
are the objects embraced by the love of Father and Son 
that produces the Holy Ghost? According to Billuart,*® 
the Holy Ghost proceeds from the notional love of all 
that is necessario et formaliter lovable in the Godhead ; 
that is, first of all, from the love which the Spirator 
bears for His own essence, 1. e., the Supreme Good; 
secondly, from the love He has a His attributes, ren 
are really identical with the Divine Essence, and, lastly, 
from His love for the individual Divine Persons them- 
selves. Although the real principle of the production 
of the Holy Ghost is the mutual love of the Father and 
the Son, we are not free to reject the love of the 


85 De Trinitate, TX, 5, 3. z 
36 De SS. Trinitatis Mysterio, diss. 5, art. 8, qu. 3. 


218 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA 


Spirator for the Person Spirated (the Holy Ghost), as an 
essentially co-operative factor on the ground that the 
Holy Ghost cannot possibly furnish the subject-matter of 
an act of which He is the result or product. Some the- 
ologians exaggerate this difficulty, but it is as easily 
solved as the one we have considered a little farther up. 
The Spirator’s love for creatures (irrespective of whether 
_they are already created, or, as mere possibles, remain to 
, be created in the future), can add its quota in the pro- 
' duction of the Holy Ghost only concomutanter et per ac- 
' cidens, because the notional love which produces the Holy 
Ghost is an essential and necessary love, whereas God’s 
love for His creatures IS eENuilely iTeG, ee as free as 
His determination to give them being.27 As regards 
God’s love for merely possible creatures (1. e., such as 
will never come into being), many divines hold that their 
essential goodness co-incides with the Divine Essence, 
which is their exemplary cause; and that, consequently, 
since they seem to lack a proper, independent goodness 
and amiability of their own, these possible creatures do 
not contribute towards the production of the Holy 
Ghost.28 We can not share this view. Having pre- 
viously espoused the opinion that the goodness proper 
to creatures is not identical with God’s own goodness,” 
consistency compels us to adhere to the view that love 
for the purely possible also enters into that notional act 
by which the Father and the Son breathe the Holy Ghost. 


READINGS: — St. Thomas, S. Theol., 1a, qu. 27 sqq., and the 
commentators; Ipem, Contr. Gent., IV, 11 (Rickaby in his Eng- 


37 Cir. (Ss ‘Thom, S. | Lheol.;)\\71a, 39 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss,; God: His 
Qt 37, -Atte1 2. ads: Knowability, Essence, and Atiri- 
38 Cfr.. Oswald, Goties Dasein, butes, pp. 440 sq. 
Wesen und Eigenschafien, p. 213. 
Paderborn 1887. 


SPECULATIVE) PROBLEMS 219 


lish version of the Summa contr. Gent. omits this chapter) ; 
*Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 26-31; Kleutgen, De Ipso Deo, 
1. II, qu. 4, art. 2-3, Ratisbonae 1881; Oswald, Trinitatslehre, 
§ 12, Paderborn 1888; *Scheeben, Handbuch der kath. Dogmatik, 
Vol. I, §§ 116-127, Freiburg 1873 (contains a wealth of spec- 
ulative thoughts). 


15 


SECTION 3 


THE DIVINE RELATIONS——DIVINE PERSONALITY 


1. DEFINITION OF THE TERMS “HyPposTasIs”’ 
AND “Person.”—As the Divine Persons consist 
in, and are constituted by, “‘subsistent relations,” 
we shall have to introduce this division of our 
treatise with a scientific exposition of the terms 
hypostasis and person, as distinguished from, 

and opposed to, nature. DAN atta 
a) Though they differ formally, and, when 
predicated of creatures, even ee the terms 
“essence,” “substance,” and “nature’ are ap- 
plied synonymously to God. “Tres quidem Hae 
sonae,;’ says the Fourth Lateran Council, “sed 
una essentia, substantia seu natura simplex om- 
nino — Three Persons, it is true, but only one 
absolutely simple Essence, or Substance, or Na- 
ture.’ ' The physical essence of a thing—its 
metaphysical essence does not concern us here— 
is the sum total of all those notes by which the 
thing is what it is. By substance we understand 
“ons in se,” ot, in the words of St. Thomas, “Be- 
ing, inasmuch as this Being is by itself,” in con- 
1 ensue rR nEuabe | oleate n. 428. 
220 


DEFINITION OF HYPOSTASIS 221 


tradistinction to accident, which is “that whose 
being is to be in something else.” ? “Nature ” is 
the principle of activity of a substance, or its phys- 
ical essence. We know from Divine Revelation 
that there is in the Blessed Trinity only one 
Nature in three Hypostases, or Persons, while in 
Christ, on the contrary, there are two complete 
Thatures in but one Hypostasis, or Person. 1 ay 
“follows that, commonly speaking, there is both a 
logical and a real distinction between Nature and 
Person. Since Person is generally defined as 
hypostasis rationalis, we have first to examine the 
notion of Hypostasis. 

by Un order to) arrive ‘at ai correct idea of 
Hypostasis, it will be advisable to institute a 
process of logical differentiation, by proceeding 
from the universal to the particular, and con- 
stantly adding new marks, until we attain to a 
complete definition. 

An Hypostasis, to begin with, must be an 
Nets Or being. very) jeis\. ds either an “ens 
in se’ (substance) or an “ens in alio’” (accident). 
An Hypostasis is manifestly not an accident; 
therefore it must be a substance. Now, with 
Aristotle, we distinguish between substantia 
_ prima (cbota mpérq) and substantia secunda (ovcta 


___ devrépa). Substantia prima is individual, substan- 


2De Potentia, art. 7; on the no- His Rvocbaki tes. Laverne and At- 
tion of “‘ substance ’”’ as opposed to tributes, pp. 276 sq. 
** accident ”? cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: 


a2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA 


tia secunda abstract substance. Common sense 
télls tis that an Hypostasis must be an individual 
substance. But the term substantia prima is 
applied not only to complete but also to incom- 
plete substances, such as body and soul, or the 
human hand or foot, which are individual sub- 
stances, but clearly not Hypostases. Conse- 
quently, the concept of Hypostasis, besides 1n- 
seitas, must have another essential note, viz.: 
integrity or completeness of substance. “Hypo- 
stasis est substantia prima et integra.’ Since, 
however, Christ’s humanity is a substantia prima 
et integra, that is, a complete human nature, 
“yet no Hypostasis, it is plain that inseitas and 
integritas do not suffice to constitute the no- 
tion of Hypostasis:~There is required a further 
determinant, namely, that it is not a part, and can- 
not be regarded as a part of any other thing. 
Hence the famous definition evolved by Tipha- 
nus: “Hvypostasis est substantia prima, integra, 
tota in se.” In plain English: An Hypostasis 
is an individual substance, separate and distinct 
from all other substances of the same kind, pos- 
sessing itself and all the parts, attributes, and 
energies which are in it.® 


3 Tiphanus, De Hypostas: et Per- Hurter, Nomenclator Literarius The- 
sona, cc. 10. Claudius Tiphanus ologiae Catholicae, Vol. III, ed. 3a, 
was an illustrious Jesuit theologian col. 951, Oeniponte 1907. 
of the seventeenth century. Cfr. 


DEFINITION OF HYPOSTASIS 223 


Of these three momenta the first two form the proxi- 
mate genus, while the third and last constitutes the 
specific difference. As the proper essence of Hypostasis 
lies in its specific difference, Christian philosophers have 
been at great pains to discuss and circumscribe the notion 
of totietas in se. They emphasize that it excludes every 
species of composition or union with other beings, and 
that it consequently signifies incommunicability and in- 
dependent being (esse per se seu perseitas).* It is, there- 
fore, merely a different way of expressing the definition 
we have given above, when we say that inseitas, imte- 
gritas, and perseitas are the essential notes of an Hypos- 
tasis. Any substance that has ceased to be tota in se can 
no longer perform the functions of an Hypostasis. Con- 
versely, as soon as a substance acquires independence or 
perseitas, it becomes an Hypostasis. As a substance 
which forms part of another substance becomes an Hy- 
postasis immediately upon being detached from that sub- 
stance (for example, an amputated limb of the body 
separated from its soul), so a substance which is tota 
in se loses its character as an Hypostasis as soon as 
it becomes a part or quasi-part of something else (as, 
for instance, the human body in the resurrection of the 
dead, or the humanity of Christ in the Hypostatic 
Union). 


c) If we compare Hypostasis with nature and 
consider their mutual relations, we find that 
the Hypostasis possesses the nature, while the 
nature is possessed by the Hypostasis; in 


4Cfr. Alexander Halensis., In ratum esse, ita quod ‘ per se’ sonat 
Arist. Metaph., V, 18: ‘Per se privationem associations.” 
esse idem est, quod solum et sepa- i 


224 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA 


other words, “the Hypostasis has the nature.” ® 
Hence the axiom: “Ey postasis habet, natura 
habetur.” An Hypostasis operates through the 
nature of which it is the bearer and controller, 
and all attributes and operations of that nature 
are referred back to the Hypostasis as its sub- 
ject. Hypostasis, therefore, as subiectum at- 
tributionis, in the language of the Schoolmen, 
‘is the principium quod, while nature is the ey 
cipium quo. 


Thus we say of man, who is an Hypostasis, that 
he eats and drinks, sees and hears, thinks and feels, 
digests and sleeps; that is, he operates by and in 
his nature and natural faculties, though the principium 
quo proximum of all these operations are the five 
senses, the organs of digestion, reason and will. If 
we take suppositum as synonymous with Hypostasis, 
we shall also understand that other Scholastic axiom: 
“ Actiones et passiones sunt suppositorum — Actions be- 
long to their respective supposita.” ° 


d) A Person (persona, tpecorov, also trdctaors ) 
is an Hypostasis plus the note “intellectual” or 
“rational.” . “Persona est hypostasis rationalis.” 
' Person and Hypostasis, therefore, differ mate- 
rially, but not formally. A crystal is just as 
truly an Hypostasis as a human being, because 
it is “substantia tota in se.’ But the possession 
of reason exalts an Hypostasis in ipsa ratione 


5 Cfr. Wilhelm-Scannell, Manual, 6Cfr.' John Rickaby, | General 
L309; Metaphysics, pp. 28¢e sq. 


DEGENITION OF AYPOS LASTS 225 


hypostaseos, in so far as independence is in- 
creased by self-consciousness and the Ego not 
only is an individualized and incommunicable sub- 
stance, but is also conscious of this fact. A per- 
son, moreover, is sui wris, and hence both the 
responsible possessor of his natural faculties and 
the subject of personal rights that are entitled to 
respect and protection. It is for this reason that 
the Schoolmen define an angel as _ “hypostasis 
cum dignitate.” 


Boéthius’s famous definition: “Persona est rationalis 
_naturae individua [i. e., prima et completa] substantia — 
| A person is the faa bal subject, self, or ego of a 
\rational nature,” 7 can easily be reduced to the shorter 
one which we gave above, viz.: “ Persona est hypostasis 
“rationalis — A person is an ‘Hypostasis endowed with 
reason.” For by individua substantia the ancients un- 
derstood precisely the same thing that we mean when 
we speak of substantia prima, integra et tota in se. The 
Greek Fathers were adverse to the use of the word 
mpocwrov for persona, because Sabellius had a) it’ to 
heretical uses. They preferred the generic term trdoracis. 
Thus St. John Damascene teaches: ‘“ Neither the soul 
, alone nor the body is an Hypostasis, but they are called 
évordorara ; that which is perfected and made of both, 
is the Hypostasis of both. For trdcracs properly is 
and means that which exists by itself, having its own 
independent” ‘being (Kae EaVTO iSioovordrws) .” (Dialect., 


c. 44°) 


"7 De Duab. Nat., 1. The, Eng- | the’ theological history of the am 
»lish translation we give is rather ‘see Newman, Arians, ch. ‘9 § i, 
a paraphrase in modern terms. On 


_ 226 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA 


e) If this definition of Person is correct, that 
invented by Locke and introduced into Catholic 
theology by Gitinther, must be false. Locke 
rholds that personality is constituted by con- 
' tinued consciousness. But if consciousness were 
the only essential and formal note of person- 
| ality, it would follow that where there is but 
_ one consciousness, there is but one person, where- 
/as a double consciousness would constitute - 
‘two persons, and so forth. Inasmuch as the 
Triune God has but one (absolute) conscious- 
ness, while Christ the Godman has two, Locke’s 
theory would destroy both the Trinity and the 
.uni-personality of Christ, which latter is based 
upon the Hypostatic Union. In other words, this 
theory entails grave Trinitarian and Christolog- 
ical heresies, and must therefore be false. It is 
also opposed to experience and the common sense 
of mankind, which treats a child as yet uncon- 
scious of self, or an idiot devoid of consciousness, 
as persons in the true sense of the word.* 


8 For a more detailed refutation 
of Locke’s error, see Rickaby, Gen- 
eral Metaphysics, pp. 284 sqq. Fr. 
Rickaby says, after trying to “‘ fol- 
low some of the meanderings of his 
[Locke’s] famous twenty-seventh 
chapter” [of the Essay on the Hu- 
man Understanding]: ‘‘ The most 
we can grant to Locke is that con- 
tinued consciousness is one test of 
personality; we cannot grant that it 
is personality. If because of the 
intimate connexion of thought with 


personality we permitted Locke to 
turn thought into personality, how 
should we resist Cousin, who _ be- 
cause personality is asserted spe- 
cially in the will, says: La volonté 
cest la personne; and _ again, 
Qwest ce que le moi? L’activité 
volontaire et libre. A long way the 
best plan is to keep to the theory 
that the person of man is the com- 
posite nature, body and soul, left 


jn“ its “Cémpleteness and sui iuris; 


the soul being substantially un- 


DEFINITION OF HYPOSTASIS 2a 


The terminology which we have explained 
above is definitively fixed by ecclesiastical and 
theological usage. It is the product of a histor- 
ical development which involved harsh and weary 
struggles extending over the first four or five 
centuries of the Christian era,? and it must not 
be changed.’. (It, took a lone’ time te-determine 
which were the best terms to be employed for 
designating Nature, Hypostasis, and Person. 
The Greeks said that there were in the Divine 
Trinity pila, ovola Kal Tpeis vrootaces: the Latins, 
“una natura (substantia, essentia) et tres’ per- 
-sonae.” Both formulas mean precisely the same 
thing. St. Athanasius did much towards intro- 
ducing a uniform terminology when, at the 
ipemic council of Alexandria, A, 1D. 362, he irec 
onciled the contending factions by showing that 
while one party took t7doras to mean ‘“Sub- 
stance,” and the other used it in the sense of 


traction and. isolation of the 
churches in times of persecution. 


changeable, though variable in its 
accidental states, the body being 


constantly changed as to its con- 
stituent particles, yet preserving a 
certain identity, describable only by 
reciting what are the facts of waste 
and repair in an organism.” (Cfr. 
also Uhlmann, Die Personlichkett 
Gottes, pp. 8 sqq., Freiburg 1906.) 
9‘ The difficulties of forming a 
theological phraseology for the 
whole of Christendom were ob- 
viously so great that we need not 
wonder at the reluctance which the 
first age of Catholic divines showed 
in attempting it, even apart from 
the obstacles caused by the dis- 


Not only had the words to be ad- . 
justed and explained which were 
peculiar to different schools or tra- 
ditional in different places, but there 
was the formidable necessity of 
creating a common measure between 
two, or rather three languages — 
Latin, Greek, -and’’Syriac. The in- 
tellect had to be satisfied, error 
had to be successfully excluded, 
parties the most contrary to each 
other, and the most obstinate, had 
to be convinced.”— Newman, Tracts 
Theological and Ecclesiastical, p. 
336, new ed., London 189s. 


228 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA 


“Person,” both were really agreed as to the un- 
derlying doctrine.” 

_ 2. THE Four RELaTiIons 1n Gop.—The origin 
‘of the Divine’ Persons from one another forms 
‘the basis of a double set of Relations: one 
between active and passive Generation, and an- 
other between active and passive Spiration. Both 
classes of Relations are real and mutual. This 
gives us four real Relations (relationes, oXEoeIs ) 
in the Godhead: active and passive Generation 
' (generare, generari), and active and passive 
Spiration (spirare, spirari). By passive Gen- 
eration and Spiration we do not, however, un- 
derstand passio in the sense of the Aristotelian 
category of 7écxev. Properly speaking, there can 
be no 7aexew in God, because He is purest actu- 
ality (actus purissimus) in being and life, Es- 
sence and -Persons. Passive Generation means 
that the Son, by virtue of active Generation on 
the part of the Father, (not so much comes 
into being as) exists from all eternity. . Pas- 
sive Spiration signifies that the Holy Ghost 
possesses His subsistence and personality solely 
in virtue of a joint act of Spiration performed by 
the Father and the Son, of which act He is the 


10 For the meaning of tmécracis ed., London 1895. On the conflicts 
and etcia in the writings of the and misunderstandings regarding 
early Fathers, see Newman’s Tracts, these terms, cfr. Kuhn, Christliche 
Theological and Ecclesiastical, ‘* On Lehre von der hl. Dreieinigkeit, 
St. Cyril’s Formula pla gvois §29, Tibingen 1857; Petavius, De 
geoapKwyervn,’ PP. 331 saq., new Trinit., IV, 4. 


Church has not, however, formally defined that 
these relations are four in number. 


THE DIVINE RELATIONS 229 


immanent terminus. It is an article of faith 
that these Relations,—i. e., of the Father to the 


, son (generare), of the Son to the Father (ge- 
_nerari), of the Father and the Son to the Holy 


Ghost (spirare), and of the Holy Ghost to the 


' Father and the Son (spirari), are not purely 


logical or imaginary. Thus we read in the De- 
cretum pro Lacobitis, promulgated by the Council 
of Florence, A. D. 1439: “Huinc damnat ecclesia 
Sabellium personas confundentem et ipsarum dis- 
tinctionem realem penitus auferentem — Hence 
the Church condemns Sabellius, who confounds 
the [Three Divine] Persons and denies that there 
is any real distinction between them.’ '! The 


It is easy to see fet the dogma of the Trinity stands 
and falls with the reality of the Four Relations just de- 
scribed.4? Since the Father is a different Person from 
the Son, and the Son a different Person from the Holy 
Ghost, the relation of the Father to the Son (and vice 
versa), and the relation of both to the Holy Ghost (and 
vice versa), must evidently be quite as real as are the 
three Divine Persons themselves. If these Relations 
were merely logical (either rationis ratiocinantis or 
rationis ratiocinatae), the distinction of Persons in the 
Godhead would evaporate into a purely logical, or at 
most a modal trinity, as taught by the Monarchians and 


11 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri- 12 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 1a, 
dion, n. 705. qui essartakr: 


230 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA 


the Sabellians.* To say that the divine Relations are 
real, therefore, is but a different way of formulating the 
Trinitarian dogma itself. 


3. [THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE TRINITY. 
—T'he most important corollary that flows from 
the doctrine of the divine Relations is the so- 
called fundamental law of the Trinity. This 
law was formulated by St. Anselm *™ and sol- 
emnly approved by the Council of Florence, A. D. 
1439. It is as follows: “In Deo omnia sunt 
» unum, ubt non obviat relationis oppositio —In 
| God all things are one except where there is 
\ Opposition of relation.” The Father differs 

from the Son only because there is a perfect 
opposition of Relation between active and pas- 
sive Generation{:; Where no such perfect rela- 
tive opposition intervenes, everything in God is 
one and indistinct. Consequently, all the divine 
attributes in general are really identical with 
the divine Essence and with one another, and this 
is true in a special manner of those attributes 
which, like justice and mercy, are in logical 
opposition to one another. This opposition is 
purely logical. How sharply the oppositio re- 
lationis in the Holy Trinity must be defined, ap- 
pears from the fact that since generare and 
| spwrare do not imply a relative but only a dis- 


13'\Supra, Ch: Ib, Sect.’ x. 15 Decretum pro TIacobitis, in Den- 
f 14De Process. Spiritus S., c. 2° zinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 
) (Migne, P. L., CLVIII, 288). 705. 


PUNDAMENTAL, LAW OF THE TRINITY Cr aar 


| parate opposition, both functions are simulta- 
neously performed by the same Person (1. e., the 
Father), without His thereby becoming two ce 
postases. Though at the same time generator 
and spirator, He is but one Hypostasis. For 

€ same reason the Son must not be excluded 
from the act of Spiration, because generart and 
spirare do not involve a complete relative oppo- 
sition, such as exists between generare and gen- 
erari, spirare and spirari. Guided by this im- 
portant rule, the Latin theologians, with the ex- 
ception of the Scotists, have always contended 
against the Greek schismatics, that if the Son 
were excluded from the function of active Spira- 
tion, there would remain no basis. for a Hy- 
postatic distinction between the Second Person 
and the Holy Ghost. For it is only i in virtue of 
the relationis oppositio, or relative opposition be- 
tween spirare and spirari, that the Son is a 
different Person from the Holy Ghost.** It fol- 
lows that the Logos differs from the Holy Ghost 
not because He is begotten by the Father, but 
because He breathes the Holy Ghost, and the 
Floly Ghost is breathed By Seana 4 


The panos of Lyons and Florence: defined it as an 
article of faith that active _Spiration must be attributed 


16 Cfr. Symbol. Tolet. XI, a. 675: similiter et Spiritus non ad se, sed 
“ Quando Pater est, non ad se, sed ad Patrem et Filium relative refer- 
ad Filium est; et quod Filius est, tur.’ Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchi- 
non ad se, sed ad Patrem est: ridion, n. 278. 


es DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA 

to the Father and the Son per modum untus, that is, 
as one really identical act. This definition is ulti- 
mately based upon the axiom of the relations op positio. 
Whatever does not include relative opposition in the 
Godhead, appertains to the indistinct identity of the Di- 
vine Being and Essence. Hence active Spiration must 
be identical with Paternity and Filiation, or, ‘in other 
words, Father and Son are necessarily one Spirator, even 
as the product of their Spiration, the Holy Ghost, is one. 
This unica spiratio was interpreted by the rule of Sh 
Anselm, which we have called the fundamental law Of 
the Trinity, in the Decretum pro Iacobitis, which em- 
phatically declares that the Father and the Son are 
one principle, of the Holy Ghost in the same sense in 
which the Blessed Trinity, as the Creator of the ae 
universe, is the one sole principle of the creature.’ 


4. THE THREE “RELATIONES PERSONIFICAE.’’ 
—If, as we have said, the Divine Nature sub- 
sists in three Hypostases or Persons, only 
three of the four real Relations existing in 
the Godhead can be “relationes personificae,” 
that is to say, only three constitute Persons. 
These three are: Paternity ( paternitas, rarpsrys ) 
Filiation (filiatio, vidas), and Passive Spiration 
| (processto, ecard pevors ) , 


_ 17 Decretum pro Iacobitis: ‘“‘ Hae 
tres personae sunt unus Deus, et 
non tres dii, quia trium est una sub- 
stantia, una essentia, una divinitas 

. . omniaque sunt unum, ubi non 
obviat relationts oppositio. » «- 
Spiritus Sanctus, quidquid est aut 
habet, habet a Paire simul et Filo. 


“Sed Pater et Filius non duo prin- 


cipia Spiritus Sancti, sed, unum 
principium, sicut Pater et Filius et 
Spiritus Sanctus non tria principio 
creaturae, sed unum principium.’ 
(Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, 
n. 703 sq.) 


THER RELATIONES: (PERSONIBICAR | (233 


a) It is easy to perceive that, concretely, these 
three Relations are the three Divine Persons 
themselves: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It 
follows,—and this is a most important truth,— 
that the three Divine Persons, as such, are Sub- 
sistent Relations; and since there are no acci- 
dents in God, ie must be conceived as Sub- 
stantial Relations. Hence the Scholastic axiom: 
“Personae divinae sunt relationes subsistentes et 
substantiales.’ The concept of Hypostasis or 
Person is most perfectly realized in Paternity, 
Filiation, and Passive Spiration, because it is to 
these “relationes personificae,” in virtue of their 
exclusive opposition, that the distinctive note of 
“totietas in se’ appertains. The mystery of the 
Divine Trinity consists in this, that the one con- 
crete Nature of the Godhead culminates in three 
distinct Hypostases, who, as three perfect Per- 
sons, possess one and the same Nature in com- 
mon. 


Some theologians teach that the Divine Persons are _ 
constituted by their origins rather than by their Rela- _ 
“tions. This opinion does not differ substantially from the | 
one set forth above. For as the origin of the Son by 
Generation and of the Holy Ghost by Spiration forms 
the fundamental basis of the divine Relations, there is 
no objective difference between origins and Relations. 
They differ only to our imperfect mode of thinking, 
which conceives the Processions as expressing primarily 
the “fiert” (via ad personas), and the Relations as de- 


234. DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA 


noting the complete state (im facto esse, », forma perma- 
jiens). Since, however, in our human conception of the 
Divine Persons, the point of prime eens is not 


separate “Deane Hypostasis. If Paternity, Filia- 
tion, and passive Spiration are the only “rela- 
tiones personificae,”’ active Spiration must mani- 
festly be cancelled from the list of ‘“‘subsistent” 
relations; because else we should have a quater- 
“nity instead of a trinity. Consequently, the 
Spirator, as such, must be impersonal. 


The objective eeiaeical reason for the impersonal 
character of the Spirator is the fact that active Spiration 
‘is a function common to both Father and Son. iin 
‘other words, ‘the “ unus S pirator” presupposes two com- 
plete. Hypostases, constituted by the relations of Pater- 
nity and Filiation. Consequently there is no room left 
for a fourth person. 

It follows from what we have said that Spiration in 
its active sense (spiratio activa ) constitutes an essential 
note of the definition of Paternity and Filiation. In 
other words, the Father cannot be conceived adequately, 

18 On the question whether ana Vol. I; pp. ''363 saa. Cir. also 
how far we may speak of an ‘‘ ab- Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., t. II (3rd 

solute subsistence,” but not of an  ed.), pp. 323 Ssd4., Friburgi 1906; 


“ obsolute personality,” in’ God;’see _—Billuart, De SS. Trinit. Myst., diss. 
» Kicutsen, Theologie der Vorzeit, ALTaTtsn Ss 


THE RELATIONES PERSONIFICAE — 235 


unless He is conceived as Spirator; and the same holds 


‘\ true of the Son. » ihe complete concept of both Father 


and Son contains spirare as a logical ingredient. “There 
‘is this difference, however. With the Father spirare 
takes the form of giving, while with the Son it takes the 
form of being received: because the Father has the power , 
of Spiration from Himself, whereas the Son posse it 
only in virtue of His Generation by the Father.%?~~In 
defining as an article of faith the unica spiratio by 
which the Father and the Son produce the Holy Ghost, 

‘the Church has therefore erected a strong rampart around 
the dogma of the Blessed Trinity, effectively preventing 
its transformation into a quaternity. 

It is easy to see how the Greek schism, “the great- 
est and most enduring of all the schisms that have rent 
the Church,” affects the dogma of the Blessed Trinity. 
(a) It denies the immediate and direct union of the 
Holy Ghost with the Son, which can consist only in 
a relation of origin. At the same time it deprives 
the Holy Ghost of His attribute of “own Spirit of the 
SOs (0) Lt denies «the perfect unity of Father 


and Son, in virtue of which the Son possesses every- *— 


thing except Paternity (and therefore also the virtus et 
actus ‘Spirandt) in common with the Father. (c) It de- 
nies the indivisible unity of the Father, since the char- 
acter of Spirator no longer appears as contained in and 
’ founded on Paternity, but standing independently along- 
/ (side of it, must, Tike Paternity, constitute a Person, and. 
so give the Father a double personality.”! 
19 For a more detailed statement 20 {Oo med ue, 
of this subtle argument the reader 81 Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. I, p. 


is referred to Ruiz, De Trinit., disp. 825; cfr. Wilhelm-Scannell’s Man- 
17, sect. 6, ual, Vol. I, p. 306. 


1a 


SECTION 4 
THE TRINITARIAN PROPERTIES AND NOTIONS 


I, [HE TRINITARIAN PROPERTIES.—By a 
‘“Property’’ theologians here understand any dis- 
tinctive peculiarity by which one Divine Person 
differs from another. 

a) Properties are divided into two classes: 
personal properties (proprietates personales, 
~Bidpara troorarxd), and properties of persons 
(proprietates personarum, Swpara rév broordcewv ) , 
The first class comprises the three subsistent Re- 
lations, each of which appertains to but one Di- 
- vine Person, and thus forms a truly distinctive 
peculiarity of that Person. They are: Pater- 
nity, Filiation, and passive Spiration. The 
_ second class, besides these properties of the first 
class—for every proprietas personalis is eo 1pso 
‘also a proprietas personae—comprises two or 
three others respectively. For besides Paternity 
there is also peculiar to the Father, as a distinc- 
tive personal note, innascibility (innascibilitas, 


~ dyermoia’) ; and He furthermore shares with the 


Son the property of active Spiration (spiratio 
activa, tvv), The different Personal Properties 
Boa; 236 


TRINITARIAN PROPERTIES 237 


may consequently be grouped together as fol- 
lows: Three—paternitas, Spiratio activa, and 
_mnascibilitas—as peculiar to the Father; two— 

filiatio and spiratio activa—to the Son; seh one 
“—spiratio. passiva—to the Holy Chas Hence 
there are six properties in all. If, as would seem 
preferable, spiratio activa is dropped,* there re- 
main only four. 


The only one of these Properties to require an ex- 
planation is the innascibility (dyewyoia) of the Father. 
Is_not the _Holy Ghost, too, unbegotten?? And if 
He is, how. Can innascibility be said to be a Property 
peculiar to the Father? Yet the Fathers and theologians 
insist that the First Person of the Divine Trinity alone 
is inmascibilis, taking mnascibilitas strictly in the sense 
b Ofo8 personal Property. ‘By calling Him dyévvyros, they 
mean to say not only that He is unbegotten, ‘but that 
He is the First Person, the original source (dpxy avev 
dpxns, dvapyos), because He alone is persona a se, who 
springs from none gue aed: in whom the other. Divine 


nee 


apyns, myn Kat ee ‘TOV i ne eae ayevnota, as 
predicated of the Father, is more than a mere nega- 
tion ‘of g generart. “It is synonymous with Unoriginate- 


1S. THetas S. Theol., 1a, qu. 32, creatus nec Rusa (ayévynros), 
AL Fe Posnalunic Spiratio non sed procedens—The Father is 
est proprietas, quia convenit duabus made of none, neither created, nor 
personts.”’ begotten; the Son is of the Father 
2“ Pater a nullo est factus nec alone; not made, nor created, but 
creatus nec genitus (aryévynros),” Hegotten; the Holy Ghost is of the 


says the Athanasian Creed; “ Filius Father and of the Son: neither 
a Patre solo est, non factus nec made, nor created, nor begotten, 
creatus (dyévnros), sed genitus but proceeding. re (Denzinger- Bann- 
(yevynros), Spiritus Sanctus a wart, Enchiridion, n. 39.) 

Patre et Filio, non factus nec 


MO, 


238 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA 

_ hess. The Father had no beginning, Fe'.is the: First 
Principle. This is the patristic teaching. St. Basil, e. g., 
says: “ But that which is derived from none other, has 


no principle; and what has no principle, is ingenerate 
(ayévyvnrov).” * This teaching is confirmed by sevérat- 
~councils.. Thus we read in the creed drawn up by the 
Eleventh Synod of Toledo, A.D. 675: “ Et Patrem 
quidem non genitum, non creatum, sed ingenitum profite- 
mur; ipse enim a nullo originem ducit, ex quo et Filius 
nativitatem et Spiritus Sanctus processionem accepit: 
fons ergo ipse et origo est totius divinitatis — We profess 
that the Father is not begotten, nor created, but _ingen- 
_erate; for He derives His origin from no one, while 
from Him the Son receives His pales and the Holy 


Tuk a a Holy Ghost, as ‘the last Person, refiaiiates 
the evolution of the Blessed Trinity, He has no claim 
to a distinctive personal note, since “ inspirability ”’ is not 
a perfection.’ | Bie 


b) There is another difficulty. If the Trini- 
tarian Properties are distinctive prerogatives of 
the Divine Persons separately, how_can the Three 
be called co-equal? “In hac Trimtate mhil prius 
aut posterius, nihil maius aut minus, sed totae 
tres personae coaeternae et coaequales,’ says the 
qu. 32, aft. 3; ad/.4:°°% Cum, per- 


sona importet dignitatem, non potest 
accipi notio [= proprietas] Spiritus 


8 Contra Eunom., I, 15 (Migne, 
PiwtG sven er s47)/ Onsthe cterm 


ayévynrov, cfr. Newman, Select 


Treatises of St. Athanasius, Vol. II, 
PP. 347 saa. 

4 Denzinger-Bannwart, 
dion, n. 275. 

5 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 1a, 


Enchiri- 


Sancti ex hoc, quod nulla persona 
est ab ipso; hoc enim non pertinet 
ad dignitatem ipsius, sicut pertinet 
ad auctoritatem Patris, quod sit a 
nullo,.” 


TRINITARIAN PROPERTIES 239 


Athanasian Creed; that is, “In this Trinity none 
is afore or after other, none is greater or less 
than another, but the whole Three Persons are 
coeternal together, and coequal.” ° How can 
this be, if any one Person enjoys a prerogative 
which the other two lack? 


To escape this difficulty, many theologians — among 
them Scotus, Cajetan, Pilluart, ee deny 
that the divine Properties are ““perfections”’ in the 
_ strict sense of the term. Most others, however, agree 
with St. Thomas, that these Properties, though not abso- 
lute, are at least relative pertfections, and as such must 
not be confused. The perfection of Paternity, for in- 
stance, is not identical with the perfection of Filiation.? 
But how can the possession of relative perfections by 
any one Divine Person, exclusive of the other two, be 
harmonized with the Church’s teaching that the Three 
Persons are absolutely coequal ? Let us remember, in 
the first place, that in essence each of the Three Divine 
Persons is absolutely and really identical with the Divine 
Nature. This absolute identity cannot but extend to the 
relative perfections possessed by each. Hence, what- 
ever of true perfection there is in the Divine Essence, 
is participated in by all Three Divine Persons severally 
and in consort. While it is true that no one Person 
can, without sacrificing His identity, surrender His pe- 
culiar prerogative to the others, it is also certain that 
each Person, besides His own, also possesses, equiva- 


6 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri- Contenson, etc. Cfr. St. Thomas’s 
dion, n. 39. Opus. contr. Errores Graecorum, c. 

7 This is the teaching of the 7: “Patet quod non posset esse 
Jesuit theologians Suarez, De Lugo, Pater perfectus, nist Filium haberet, 
Ruiz, Vasquez, Tanner, Franzelin, quia nec Pater sine Filio esset.” 


and of the Thomists Gotti, Sylvius, 


240 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA 


lently, though not formally, the relative perfections of 
the other two. Paternity as a perfection is surely not in- 
ferior in value or dignity to F iliation, and Spiration is 
of equal importance with either. Hence the Son loses 
nothing by not being the Father, and so forth. The 
/ Father, per contra, could not be Father if the Son were 
not the Son, and the Son could not be the Son if the 
Father were not the Father. To this must be added an- 
other important consideration. By virtue of their mu- 
tual immanence or inexistence (zrepixdpyois ) the Three 


_ Divine “Persons” communicate to™ one another quasi- 


formaliter even their relative prerogatives or Properties, 
The Father bears within Himself the Son and the Holy 
Ghost as the intrinsic terminus of His notional under- 
standing and love; while, conversely, the Son and the 
Holy Ghost share in the relative perfection of Paternity 
by virtue of their immanence in the Father,— that is, 
so far as the Hypostatic differences between the Divine 
Persons allow.® 


2. THE Divine Notions.—As the term itself 
indicates, a Notion’ is that by which one Per- 
son is distinguishable from another. St. Thomas 
defines it as “td quod est propria ratio cogno- 
scendi divinam personam.”'' Inasmuch as we 
distinguish each Divine Person by His Properties, 
there must be as many Notions as there are 
Properties. Those theologians, however, who, 
by eliminating active Spiration, have reduced the 


8 Infra, pp. 281 sqq. 10 From nmosco. The Greek tech- 
® For a more detailed discussion nical term is yy@pioua, 
of this question, see Tepe, Instit. 11S. Thedl. Ya"qR™ 32, art. Ge 


Theol., Nol, 1I,-p. 383-392, Paris 
1895. 


THE DIVINE NOTIONS 241 


number of Properties to four, posit five divine 
Notions, as we shall proceed to explain. ~~ 
Bot: Thomas, in treating of this matter,’ 
starts from the axiom: “A quo alus et qu 
ab alto.” Applying this principle to the Three 
i’ Persons of the Godhead, he distinguishes the 
Father (1) by the fact that He is a nullo alo, 
that is to say, innascibilis, unoriginate; (2) by 
the further fact that He is the principiwm a quo 
alius per generationem i paternitas) ; and (3) 
that He is the principium a quo alius per 
My? -spirationem (= spiratio activa). Similarly the 
', Notions of the Son are Filiation (filiatio) and 
active Spiration (spiratio activa), whereas the 
4 one distinctive Notion of the Holy Ghost is pas- 
\ sive Spiration (spiratio passiva). The subjoined 
=» scheme will make our meaning clearer: 


“YPATER FILIUS SPIRITUS S. 


a) imnascibilitas a) generatio passiva a) Spiratio passiva 
b) generatio activa’ b) spiratio activa 
Cc) spiratio activa 


Hence there can be no more than six Notions. 
Since, however, spiratio activa is common to both 
Father and Son, theologians usually reduce the 
number to five. 


In drawing up a list of divine Notions we must ob- 
serve the same rule which guided us in distinguishing the 


12 Ibid. 


242 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA 


divine Properties, viz.: Negative marks of distinction 
cannot be counted as Notions; else the list of divine No- 
tions would contain twelve, to-wit: 


PATER FILIUS SPIRITUS S. 


a) non generatur a) non generat. a) non generatur 
b) sed generat b) sed generatur “b) non generat 
c) non spiratur  c) non spiratur c) non spirat 

d) sed spirat d) sed spirat d) sed sptratur 


b) Only such negative marks are really and properly 
Notions as signify a positive prerogative (dignitas, 
_ dkiwpa), e. g., dyevynoia, OF Non generatur, on the part 
of the Father. The “ infecundity ” of the Holy Ghost 
in particular (non generat and non spirat) cannot 
be reckoned among the Notions that distinguish Him 
from the two other Divine Persons, because He “ ter- 
minates and crowns the fecundity of the Divine Na- 
ture and seals the unity of the other two Persons,” 
and His infecundity is “therefore no complement of the 
notio spirationis passivae.”** From the same point of 
view it is easy to perceive the falsity of the Scotist 
contention that dmvevoria, inspirabilitas ( from non spira- 
tur), is a distinctive Notion of the Son. The dignity 
of the Second Person is sufficiently determined by gene- 
ratio passiva, while His inspirabilitas is virtually in- 
cluded in the prerogative, which He shares with the 
Father, of breathing the Holy Ghost. In the case of 
the Father dvevoria or inspirabilitas is excluded for this 
further and special reason, that the First Person of the 
Divine Trinity is the First Principle, or principium sine 
principio. A doubt remains as to whether non generatur 
‘Should be attributed as a special Notion to the Holy 


13 Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. I, p. 837. 


THE DIVINE NOTIONS 243 


Ghost, seeing that He is called ingenitus (ayévynros) in 
“the Creeds. But the Third Person derives His origin not 
from Generation but from Spiration, and hence the non 
generatur is virtually contained in the spiratur, that is, 
passive Spiration. The case is different with regard to 
the negative Notion non generatur on the part of the 
_- Father, for agennesia, as predicated of the Father, and 
AN of the Father alone, means” precisely that He stands 
unoriginate at the Héad of the other two Persons, and 
that these derive their origin from Him, not He from 
them. 

Thus, according to the common teaching of theologians, 
there are in God, 
“s I, One Nature (or Substance) ; 
Two Processions ; 
. Three Hypostases ; 
. Four Relations; and 
. Five Properties and Notions. 


wh w& bd 


READINGS : — On the subjects treated in §§ 3 and 4, cfr. Not- 
tebaum, De Personae vel Hypostasis apud Patres Theologosque 
Notione et Usu, Susati 1852; *C. Braun, Der Begriff Person 
in seiner Anwendung auf die Lehre von der Trinitit und In- 
karnation, Mainz 1876; Heinrich, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. 
IV, §§ 245-249; J. Uhlmann, Die Persénlichkeit Gottes und ihre 
modernen Gegner, Freiburg 1906; *Billuart, Summa S. Thomae: 
De SS. Trinitatis Mysterio, diss. 2-6; St. Thomas, S. Theol., ta, 
qu. 28 sqq.; Ipem, Contr. Gent., IV, 11 sqq.; Wilhelm-Scannell, 
A Manual of Catholic eel aow Vol sD cpp 3t2ssda, sks 
Hall, The Trinity, pp. 221 sqq.— P. Stiegele, Der A gennesiebegriff 
in der griechischen Theologie des vierten Jahrhunderts, Freiburg 


1913. 


SECTION « 


THE DIVINE APPROPRIATIONS AND MISSIONS 


I. THe Divine AppropriaTIONS.—The Di- 
vine Appropriations differ essentially from the 
Divine Properties. The latter appertain ex- 
clusively to this or that Divine Person, while 


_, the former attribute to one Person something 


which is common to all Three. Both are closely 
related, in so far as the appropriata are apt to. 
lead to a knowledge of the propria. Appropria- 
tion (appropriatio) may therefore be defined as — 
a process, based on Scripture and Tradition, by 
which certain absolute divine attributes and 
operations, which are essentially common to the 
entire Trinity, are ascribed to one of the Divine 
Persons in particular, with the purpose of re- 
vealing the Hypostatic character of that Person.? 
From this definition it is manifest: (1) That it 
would be heretical to make the appropriatum a 
proprium (1. e., the exclusive property or pre- 
rogative of one Person), 2 for, in the words of the 
Angelic Doctor, “appropriare nihil est aliud, 


1 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 1a, 2 Abélard and Gunther were guilty 
qu. 39, art, 7. of this error, 


244 


THE DIVINE APPROPRIATIONS — 24¢ 


quam commune trahere ad proprium.”’* (2) 
That the appropriations are not to be made 
arbitrarily, but according to a strict law. This 
law may be formulated thus: Between the Hy- 
postatic character of the Divine Person to whom 
an attribute is appropriated, and that attribute 
itself, there must exist some special intrinsic re- 
lationship. This law, though strict in itself, 
admits of a wide latitude in application, because 
the Personal character of the Divine Hypostases 
is manifold, and various attributes and operations 
may be intrinsically appropriated to each. 


The Appropriations most commonly one may 
be divided into four categories.* 

a) The first category comprises the substantive names 
of God. They are distributed among the Three Divine | 
Persons, according to the rule laid down above, in this 
wise: To the Father, as the principle of the Godhead, 
‘is appropriated the Ines Ged (Deus, 6 @eds). The 
Son, because of the dominion He has received from the 
Father over all creation, is commonly called “ Lord” 
(Dominus, 6 xvpws).5 The law of appropriations is, 
however, sometimes set aside in Holy Scripture, as when 
St. Paul applies to Christ the proper name 4). and 
expressly ‘calls Him: “ GodJ7*.In-2* Cor, 1, 173“the 
Apostle appropriates the name “Lord” to the Holy 
Ghost, to whom the Creed also refers as “ Dominum et 
| vivificantem.” 


8 De Verit., qu. (7, art. 3. Scannell’s Manual, Vol. I, pp. 341 
4 We follow Scheeben, Dogmattk, sqq.) 


Vol. I, pp. 887 sqq. (Cfr. Wilhelm- & Cir Cor eX lisa saq; 
6 Supra, pp. 79 sq. 


246 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA 


b) Of the absolute attributes which form the second 
class, omnipotence is appropriated to the Father, all- 
wisdom to the Son, and all-goodness and sanctity to the 
Holy Ghost. This is in perfect keeping with the Per- 
sonal character of the Three Divine Persons, since the 
Father is doy ris dpyys, the Son, sapientia gemta, and the 
Holy Ghost, Personal Love and Hypostatic Sanctity.’ 
Similarly St. Augustine, SHEE from the fundamental 


seeeste unity pure and simple; the Seek as the Logos 
and intellectual image of the Father, equality, the Holy 
Ghost, as the connecting link between the Father and the 
Son, the harmony of unity and equality. A kindred though 
not identical appropriation is found in the writings of St. 
Hilary ® and quoted by St. Augustine,?° viz.: “ Aeter- 
nitas in Patre, species in imagine, usus in munere— 
Eternity is in the Father, form [i. e , beauty] in the 
Image |i. e., the Logos], use [i. e., franion| in the on 
[ue., the Holy Ghost].” 1 For the Father is dpyy 
_ dvapxos, the Son, eixoy cov, and the Holy Ghost Swped 
®eov. Many oe also find an Appropriation indicated — 
“in Rom. XI, 36: “Ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso sunt 
omnia — Of him [t. e. the Father], and by him [1. e., 
the Son], and in him [i. e., the Holy Ghost] are all 
things.” The preposition ex, they hold, signifies the 
| primal power and the source of all things, the preposition 
per, the exemplary cause, and the preposition in, the 
conservative force which sustains the universe.t2” 


7 Cfr. Richard of St. Victor, De 10 De Trpits AVAL ae, fe 
Tribus Appropriatis, 2 (Migne, P. 11 St. Augustine explains this 
L., CXCVI, 993 saq.). mode of appropriation, J. c. 

8 De Doctr. Christ., I, 5. 12 Cir St Thomas, S. Theol., 1a, 


9 De Trinit., II, 1. qu. ‘30, rattan Ss 


THE DIVINE APPROPRIATIONS 247 


c) With regard to the outward manifestations of the 
Blessed Trinity, which form the third class of “Appro- 
priations, Catholic theologians, following St. Paul’s hint 
in Rom. XI, 36, have laid down the general formula, 
that “all things have been created by the Father through 
the Son in the Holy Ghost.” To the Father they at- 
tribute the decree or resolution to operate” (imperium, 
BovdAnpa), to the Son, the exectition (erecutio, Sypoupyia), 
“and to the Holy Ghost, the perfecting of the work (per- 
fectio, Tedelwors). This is in line with the popular belief 
appropriating ‘the Creation to the Father, the Redemption 
to the Son, and Sanctification to the Holy Spirit. 

d) The Appropriations of the fourth and last class 
are based upon the general relations of the creature to 
its Creator. The worship and sacrificial cult offered to 
‘the Blessed Trinity is divided among the Three Divine 
Persons in such manner that the Father is the*object 
of it, while the Son and the Holy Ghost, besides being 
its object, are “at the same time mediators of the wor- 
ship offered to the Father, from whom they originate 
and whose glory they reveal, and with whom they 
receive the same worship, because they are one with 
Him.” ** As the Church in her liturgical prayers is 
wont | to appeal to “God the Father through desis, Christ 
in the unity of the Holy Ghost,” but never to ‘ ‘ Jesus 


Christ through the Father,” so Christ Himself, as man,\ 2 


weesige to His Heavenly Pather'® even. as He still 

“maketh intercession for us at the right hand of God, iia 
and generally acts as the “natural Mediator ” between 
God and man, though, of course, the proper object oF our 


13Cfr. St. Basil, De Spiritu 15 Cfr. John XVII, I sqq. 
Sancto, 16 (Migne, P. G., XXXII, 16 yRom. RVD en oar eeenEveDs 
134). VII, 25. zs 


14 Cfr. Wilhelm-Scannell, Manual, 
Vol. I, 343. 


248 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA 


worship is not the Father alone, but the whole Divine 
Trinity.2" 


2. THE Divine Missions.—The Divine Mis- 
sions, so called, throw into relief the hypostatic 
differences of the Divine Persons, and also their 
Properties,** and hence are of no inconsiderable 
assistance in elucidating the dogma of the Blessed 
Trinity. They are related to the Divine Appro- 
‘priations in so far as an operation common to 
the whole Trinity is not infrequently appro- 
priated to that particular Person who is said 
to be “sent” for a definite purpose by an- 
other. Cfr. Gal. IV, 6: “Mistt Deus [i. e¢., 
Pater] Spiritum Filu sui in corda vestra claman- 
tem: Abba, Pater —God [the Father] hath 
sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, cry- 
ing? Abba; Hather-* 


a) A divine Mission (missio divina) is defined as 

“the eternal procession of a Person sent from a Per- 
son sending, in its relation to a creatural terminus in 
time.” 2° It is important to emphasize this twofold 
aspect of divine Mission, vz.: the fundamental relation 
of one Person to another as its terminus a quo and its 
effect in the creature as terminus ad quem. The missio 


17 It remains for Soletblogy to 
develop. ‘this point. On the special 
Appropriations of the Holy Ghcst, 
cfr. St. Thomas, Contr. Gent., IV, 
20-22 (Rickaby, Of God and His 
Creatures, pp. 351 sqq., London 
1905). 

18 Supra, pp. eae sq. 


19 On the concept of “ Mission,” 
vide supra, p. 175. 

20 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 
1a, qu. 43, art. 3, ad 3: “ Missio 
includit processionem aeternam et 
aliquid addit, scil. temporalem effec- 
tum.” 


THE DIVINE MISSIONS 249 
“ad intra (i. é., processio) is eternal, but the missio ad 
“extra takes “placé in time. It alae (1) that an 
Eternal Mission must be intrinsically as necessary and 
unchangeable as Generation and Spiration; while a 
Temporal Mission, on the other hand (i. e., a proceed- 
ing to extérior effécts) is subject to the free will of the 
Tritine God. (2) There can be no Eternal Mission . 
except from Person to ‘Person, strictly according to the 
_dxodovdia Kata THV rééw ; ae GAS Temporal Mission, being 
an outward manifestation, is a function common to the 
whole Trinity? From this we may deduce a law, 
which i 1s confirmed by Holy Scripture, viz.: that the Tem- 
poral Missions are strictly regulated by the divine se- 
quence of origin. Consequently, the Father alone can ° 
send, and He can send both the Son and the Holy Ghost. 
The Son can be sent, but only by the Father; He can also 
send, but He can send only the Holy ee The Holy 
CREST, in His turn, cannot send, but can be sent by either 
the Father or the Son. The Person who proceeds 
(missus) stands as it were midway between the eternal 
terminus a quo and the temporal terminus ad quem, be- 
cause, on the one hand, owing to the sequence of origin, 
He depends on the Person from whom He proceeds, 
while, on the other, He produces in the (rational) 
creature a new effect, which is again, in its on appro- 
priated to Him.”3 


21 Cfr. supra, p. 111. 

22 Cir. St. August., De Trinit., 
IV, 20, 28: “ Mittit, qui genuit; 
mittitur, “quod genitum est. ~ wed 
Pater non dicitur missus; ... non 
enim habet, de quo sit aut ex quo 
procedat....De Spiritu§ Sancto 
dicitur: ‘a Patre procedit,’ Pater 
vero a nullo— He sends who be- 
got, That is sent which is begotten. 

. But the Father is not said to 


be sentr.);. 


for He has no one of 
whom to be, or from whom to 
proceed, _...» It is said of the ‘Holy 
Ghost: 
Father,’ 
one.” 
23 No one has explained this more 
clearly than St. Thomas, when he 
says: “In ratione missionis duo 
importantur: quorum unum est 
habitudo misst ad eum, a quo mit- 


but the Father is from no 


g 


‘He proceedeth from the® 


250 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA 

b) A Mission is visible or invisible (missio visibilis — 
invisibilis), according as its temporal effect in the crea- 
ture is sensible or insensible. A visible Mission can- 
not be conceived without an invisible one, but an in- 
visible does not necessarily suppose a visible Mission. 
We have an example of a visible Mission in the de- 
scent of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost Day. He de- 
scends invisibly, secundum gratiam, whenever confirma- 
tion is administered or Holy Orders are conferred. 

There are two classes of visible Missions, according 
as the Divine Person who is sent (missus) becomes 
visible to men by entering into Hypostatic Union with 

a human nature (the Word made flesh), or merely mani- 
/ fests Himself to men by means of a visible symbol (as 
“the Holy Ghost descending in the form of a dove). 
The Incarnation is unique as a pre-eminent Mission, of 
which the Old Testament theophanies,?* so far as they 
can be considered “ Missions” at all, were merely, a 
preparation and preamble. For this reason Suarez calls 
the Incarnation a missio visibilis substantialis in opposi- 
tion to all other missions, which are ‘merely. representa- 
tivae.?® i 

Aside from the Mission of the Incarnate Logos, an 
invisible Mission as such invariably ranks higher than 


quia prius ibi omnino non erat quo 
mittitur, vel quia incipit aliquo modo 


titur; aliud est habitudo missi ad 
terminum, ad quem mittitur. Per 
Missio 


hoc autem, quod aliquis mittitur, 
ostenditur processio quaedam missi 
a mittente vel secundum imperium, 
sicut dominus mittit servum, vel 
secundum consilium, ut st consili- 
arius mittere dicatur regem ad bel- 
landum, vel secundum originem, ut 
si dicatur quod flos emittitur ab 
arbore. Ostenditur etiam habitudo 
ad terminum, ad quem muttitur, ut 
aliquo modo ibi esse incipiat, vel 


essé€, quo prius non erat. 
igitur divinae personae convenire po- 
test, secundum quod importat ex 
una parte processionem originis a 
mittente, et secundum quod impor- 
tat ex alia parte novum modum 
existendt in alio.”’ S. Theol., 1a, 
Que 435 arty 1. 
24 Supra, pp. 
25 De Trinit., 


12 sqq. 
QU Ge 


THE DIVINE MISSIONS 251 


a visible Mission, because it aims at the supernatural 
sanctification of the creature. “Nec enim Spiritus 
Sanctus de Patre procedit in Filium,” says the Eleventh 
Council of Toledo (A.D. 675), “vel de Filio procedit 
AD SANCTIFICANDAM CREATURAM, sed simul ab utrisque 
processisse monstratur, quia caritas sive sanctitas am- 
borum agnoscitur. Hic igitur Spiritus Sanctus missus 
ab utrisque creditur.”?® The creation and conservation 
of the cosmos, and God’s co-operation with His crea- 
tures can no more be attributed to a divine Mission than 
His omnipresence per essentiam, potentiam et praesen- 
tiam,”* and hence all divine missions, properly so called, 
are confined to the production of supernatural effects, cul- 
minating in the infusion and augmentation of sanctifying 
hes and in the personal indwelling of the Holy Ghost. 

“Est unus [modus] specialis, qui convenit naturae ra- 
tionali, in qua Deus dicitur esse sicut cognitum in co- 
gnoscente et amatum in amante. Et quia cognoscendo et 
amando creatura rationalis sua operatione attingit ad 1p- 
sum Deum, secundum istum specialem modum Deus non 
solum dicitur esse in creatura rationali, sed etiam habitare 
in ea sicut in templo,’ etc.?8 Consequently, sanctifica- 
tion is a divine Mission kar’ efoxnv. This also gives us 
the reason why a person can be sent only to rational 
creatures. The supernatural communication of the so- 
called gratiae gratis datae, and of the theological virtues 
faith and hope, is not to be conceived as a divine Mission 
in the strict sense of the term, because it does not essen- 
tially —ex vi notionis — include sanctifying grace nor 


26 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri- Cir, John ALV;; \s7yn2asaa) Cor. 


dion, n. 277. III, 16, VI, 19; Gal. IV, 6, and 
27 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 1a, so forth. For a more thorough ex- 
qu.- 43, art. 3. planation, see the dogmatic treatise 


28S. Theol:, ta, que 43, art. 3. on Grace, 


17 


252 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOGMA 


theological charity and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, 
which are invariably connected with this grace.?* 

c) Let us remark, in conclusion, that the concept of 
divine Mission must be carefully distinguished from the 
cognate notions of Indwelling (inhabitatio) and Appari- 
tion (apparitio). Though every invisible Mission has 
for its ultimate object the “indwelling” of God in the 
soul, and the beginning of that on ame is signalized 
after the manner of a “ coming” “descent,” '*., yet 
Mission and Indwelling are not cone for this rea- 
son, among others, that Mission takes place only in 


conformity with immanent Procession from Person to 


Person, while Indwelling, though appropriated in a spe- 
cial manner to the Holy Ghost, is common to the entire 
Trinity.*t The concept of “ Apparition” also is more 
extensive than that of Mission. For though the Father 
and the Blessed Trinity as such cannot be sent, because 
they do not procéed, there is no reason why they should 
not appear visibly. We have a classical example of such 
a Trinitarian theophany in the account of our Lord’s 
Pepiiem in the Jordan. EH : 


Rev niweb ec Beatdes St. Thomas, S. Theol., 1a, qu. 43, and his 
commentators, cfr. St. Augustine, De Trinitate, 1. II-IV; Peta- 
vius, De. Trimit.; 1. VIIL; *Suarez,:De Trine, to XI; ‘Reiz,, De 
Trinit., disp. 82, 108 sq.; Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 42-48; 
K. v. Schazler, Natur und Ubernatur, pp. 42 sqq., Mainz 1865; 
Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. II (3rd ed.), pp. 340 sqq.; De 
Régnon, Etudes de Théologie Positive sur la S. Trinité, Etudes 
XVII and XXV, Paris 1808. 


29 Cfr. Card. Manning, The Inter- 80 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His 
nal Mission of the Holy Ghost, 5th Knowability, Essence, and Attri- 
ed., New York (s. a.); De Bellevue, butes, pp. 325 sq. 

L’Guvre du Saint-Esprit ou la 81:Cfr. John XIV, -23. 
Sanctification des Ames, Paris 1901. 32 Supra, pp. 24 sq. 


PARAL 


UNITY IN TRINITY, OR THE 
TRIUNITY OF GOD 


Monotheism is the foundation of all true religion, 
and therefore we must not dismiss the subject of this 
volume without demonstrating that the dogma of the 
Divine Trinity neither destroys nor endangers the unity 
and simplicity of God. The Blessed Trinity must be 
essentially conceived not only as Trinity in Unity, but 
likewise as Unity in Trinity. It is impossible to separate 
the one from the other. 

We shall begin this second part of our treatise with 
a consideration of Tritheism, which is the heretical an- 
tithesis of the dogma of the Blessed Trinity. Tritheism 
is no less destructive of the dogma of the Trinity than 
Monarchianism (Unitarianism) in its diverse forms.? 
It is against Tritheism that the Athanasian Creed 
teaches: “Sicut singillatim unamquamque personam 
Deum ac Dominum confiteri christiana religione com- 
pellimur, ita tres Deos aut Dominos dicere catholica 
religione prohibemur— For like as we are compelled 
by the Christian verity to acknowledge évery~ Person 
by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden 
by the Catholic religion to say, there be Three Gods 
or Three Lords.” 3 na 


* ; 

1Cfir. Symbol. Athanas.: “ Ut is to be worshipped.” (Denzinger- 
per omnia et unitas in Trinitate et Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 39.) 
Trinitas in unitate veneranda sit — 2 Supra, pp. 115 saqq. 
So that in all things the Unity in 38 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En- 
Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity chiridion, n. 39. 


253 


254 UNITY IN -PRINIDY 


The unitas in Trinitate or triunitas (= tri- 
nitas) may be regarded from a threefold point 
of \view:, (1) As ‘unity of) nature;""(2) as 
unity of external operation;® and (3) as unity 
of circumincession or mutual inexistence.® Tri- 
theism is the heretical contradictory of all three of 
these, but it is most directly opposed to unity of 
nature, and for this reason we proceed to con- 
sider it in the first Section of the following Chap- 
ter, which is devoted to the Consubstantiality ot 
the Three Divine Persons. 


4 Unitas naturae s. substantiae s. 6 Unitas circumincessionis, mept- 


essentiae. Xwpnats, 
5 Unitas operationis ad extra. ascii 


a eg ae eee 


CHAPTER I 


ONENESS OF NATURE, OR THE CONSUBSTANTIALITY 
OF THE THREE DIVINE PERSONS 


SECTION. 1 


TRITHEISM AND THE CHURCH 


I. THE Heresy or TRITHEISM.—This heresy 
did not assume definite proportions until after 
the dogma of the Trinity had been formally de- 
fined. The Arians and Semi-Arians escaped the 
formal charge of Tritheism, because they repre- 
sented the Logos as a creature of the Father, 
and the Holy Ghost as a creature of the Logos. 
But as they held these two Persons to be divine 
at least by grace and merit, they were frequently 
accused by the Fathers of fostering the Tritheis- 
tic heresy. 


a) John Philoponus, a famous expounder of Aristotle 
and a votary of Monophysitism, 1 is reputed to be the 
real founder of Tritheism, which he pressed into the 
service of his Christological heresy. When it was 

1 Philoponus flourished about A.  Literarius Theologiae  Catholicae, 
D. 550. His chief theological work Vol. I, 3rd ed., coll. 466-7, Oeni- 


is entitled Avartnris wept évw- ponte 1903. 
oews, Cir. Hurter, Nomenclator 


255 


256 THE DIVINE PERSONS 


urged against his Monophysitic position, that to confuse 
Nature and Person in Christ would surely lead to a 
similar confusion in the Divine Trinity, and therefore 
ultimately to Tritheism, Philoponus answered: Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct individuals of 
the species “ God,” in precisely the same way that Peter, 
Paul, and John are three different individuals of the 
pene “man,” and they must therefore be looked upon 
“ three part-substances in one common, abstract. sub- 
oe ne 
b) In the Middle Ages, according to the authentic 
testimony of the Fourth Lateran Council (A.D. 1215), 
Abbot Joachim of Flora in Calabria? conceived the 
oneness of the Three Divine Persons as a mere collective 
and generic unity.* It is difficult to see under the cir- 
cumstances how this rather hotblooded and ill-advised 
monk could dare to accuse Peter Lombard of having 
heretically represented the Blessed Trinity as a quater- 
nity. We must add, however, that Joachim de Floris 
died penitently, professing absolute submission to the 
authority of the infallible Church a 
c) About the middle of the nineteenth century a Ger- 
man theologian, Anton Giinther (+ 1863), gave grievous 
scandal by teaching that the Three Divine Persons con- 
stitute a purely formal unity, which is neither specific 
nor numerical. The Absolute — such in brief was his 


2Tpeis pepixal ovciar év ovoia fatetur, quemadmodum  dicuntur 
KOU, multi homines ‘unus populus’ et 
3 + 1202. Cfr. Gardner in the mulit fideles ‘una_ ecclesia.’” 
Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VIII, Conc. Lateran. IV, cap. ‘‘ Damna- 
Pp. 406 sq. mus’? (Denzinger-Bannwart, En- 


4“ Quamvis concedat quod. Pater 
et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus sunt 
una essentia, una substantia unaque 
natura: verum unitatem huiusmodt 
mon veram et propriam, sed quasi 
collectivam et similitudinariam esse 


chirtdion, n. 431). 

5“ Se illam fidem tenere, quam 
Romana tenet Ecclesia, quia di- 
sponente Domino cunctorum fidelium 
mater est et magistra.” (Conc. 
Later. IV, cap. “‘ Damnamus,” ibid.) 


ee 


og 


THE HERESY OF TRITHEISM 257, 


Seon ay Wirtue of a theogonic process Ws self- 
realization,” posits itself three times in succession, first 
as thesis, secondly as antithesis, and thirdly as synthesis, 
whereby the Divine Substance becomes triplicated, that 
is, develops into three relative substances or Persons, 
who formally coalesce into an “ Absolute Substance ” 
or Absolute Personality.® 


2. THE CONDEMNATION OF TRITHEISM.—The 
Church has at all times strenuously rejected 
Tritheism in every guise. 


a) As early as A.D. 262, Pope Dionysius, in a dog- 
matic epistle which Scheeben rightly calls epoch- 
making,’ sharply censured certain Tritheistic expressions 
of Bishop Denis of Alexandria. “ Neque igitur ad- 
mirabilis et divina unitas,’ he declared, “in tres divini- 
tates est separanda neque factionis [= facturae] vocabulo 
dignitas ac summa magnitudo Domini [= Christi] est 
diminuenda — Neither then may we divide into three 
Godheads the wonderful and divine Monad; nor dis- 
parage with the name of ‘creature’ the dignity and ex- 
ceeding majesty of the Lord.”’® St. Sophronius of 
Jerusalem esa £28) wrote a refutation of Monotheletism, 
in which the “ now Tritheitae” are castigated unmerci- 
fully. This treatise was declared to be orthodox and 
was bodily incorporated into the canons of the Sixth 
Ecumenical Council, A.D. 680. “ Numeratur igitur SS. 


Trinitas,’ we read there, “non essentiis aut naturis et 
6Cfr. Kleutgen, Theologie der 7 Dogmatik, Vol. I, p. 746. 

Voraeit, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 379 8 Supra, p. 12r sq. 

-sqq., Munster 1867. For a good 9 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri- 


account of Gunther and his philo- dion, n. 51. Newman’s translation 


sophico-theological system see Lau- 
chert in the Catholic Encyclopedia, 
Vol. VII, pp. 85 sqq. 


(Select Treatises of St. Rioeicemt ti 
Vol. I, p. 47). 


258 THE DIVINE PERSONS 


diversis deitatibus vel tribus dominationibus, sicut in- 
samvunt Ariani et sicut novi Tritheitae furiunt, vanis- 
sime dicentes, essentias tres et naturas tres et tres domi- 
nationes et tres deitates.. . . Eum, qui ista recipit aut 
sapit aut novit, anathematibus percellimus.” 31 


b) More important and more definite than 
these and in fact all other medieval decisions, is 
the “Caput Damnamus” hurled by the Fourth 
Council of the Lateran against Abbot Joachim de 
Floris (A.D. 1215). Oswald calls it “the last 
solemn, and also the most effective and most defi- 
nite decision ever uttered by the ecclesiastical 
magisterium in regard to this mystery.” ?? 

a) The salient point of this decision is that 
the “one summa res’*® is at the same time 
“truly Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,” in such 
wise that, excluding all semblance of “quater- 
nity,” the “Three Persons together and each Per- 
son separately” actually coincide and are numer- 
ically identical with that “swmma res.’ 4 Inas- 
much as no distinction attaches to the Divine Na- 
ture, which is absolute, but only to the Divine 


10 The reference is probably to 
Philoponus and his adherents. 

11 Cfr, Hardouin, Concil., t. III, 
1263. 

12 Trinitatslehre, p. 
born 1888. 

13 Cfr. John X, 29: “ maius om- 
nibus,”’ 

14 Nos autem, sacro  appro- 
bante Concilio, credimus et confite- 
mur cum Petro Lombardo, quod 


Pader- 


112, 


una quaedam summa res est,... 
quae veraciter est Pater et Filius 
et Spiritus Sanctus; tres simul per- 
sonae, ac singillatim quaelibet earun- 
dem: et ideo in Deo solummodo 
Trinitas est, non quaternitas; quia 
quaelibet trium personarum est illa 
res, videlicet substantia, essentia 
seu natura divina.” (Denzinger- 
Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 432.) 


THE HERESY OF TRITHEISM 259 


Persons, who are relative, the same Council says: 
“Et illa [summa] res non est generans neque 
genita nec procedens, sed est Pater qui generat, et 
Filius qui gigmitur, et Spiritus Sanctus qui pro- 
cedit, ut distinctiones sint in personis et unitas in 
natura.’ *° That is to say, it is not the Divine | 
Nature which generates, or is begotten, or pro- 
ceeds, but it is the Father who begets, the Son | 
who is begotten, and the Holy Ghost who pro- 
ceeds. 


The Council elucidates this point by continuing, in more 
popular language: “ Licet igitur alius sit Pater, alius 
Filius, alius Spiritus Sanctus, non tamen aliud; sed id 
quod est Pater, est Filius et Spiritus Sanctus idem om- 
nino, ut secundum orthodoxam et catholicam fidem con- 
substantiales credantur.’1® From these premises flows 
a conclusion which is of prime HTmoRt ane for the 
consideration of the Divine Rath Sigh BON Sh or 
Consubstantiality, viz.: that one and the same “ summa 
res” simultaneously exercises two separate and distinct 
functions,— the functions of one Absolute and three 
Relatives. Under the first-mentioned — aspect of the 
Blessed Trinity it would be heretical to say: “The 
Divine Nature (summa res) generates, or is begot- 
ten, of proceeds ”> while under ee aspect ASE OneG 
in the second place, this same “summa res” is the 
Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and 
the Holy Ghost who is breathed. It $s this” twofold 
functioning of the one “summa res’ that enables 

15 Conc. yan IV, cap. “ Damnamus.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri- 


dion, nv 432.) 
16 Ibid. 


260 THE DIVINE PERSONS 


us to give opposite replies to the queries “ What?” 
and “Who?” To the query: “ What is the Father?” 
the answer is: “Jd quod Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, 
idem omnino,” while if it be asked: “Who is the 
Father?” the reply will be: “ Alius Pater, alius Filius, ~ 
calius Spiritus Sanctus.” aaa a aN He is aN ie 


B ) In order still more accurately to define this 
identity of nature, which underlies the distinction 
of Persons, the Council enters upon a somewhat 
detailed exposition, from which we shall quote a 
salient passage: “Pater enim ab aeterno Filium 
generando suam substantiam et dedit, 1uxta quod 
ipse testatur: ‘Pater quod dedit muiht matus 
omnibus est. Ac dict non potest, quod partem 
substantiae suae ill1 dederit et partem tpse sibt 
retinuerit, cum substantia Patris indivisibilis sit, 
utpote simplex omnino. Sed nec dict potest, quod 
Pater in Filium transtulerit suam substantiam 
generando, quasi sic dederit eam Filio, quod non 
retinuertt tpsam sibi: alioquin desusset esse sub- 
stantia. Patet ergo, quod sine ulla diminutione 
Filius nascendo substantiam Patris accepit: et tta 
Pater et Filius habent eandem substantiam, et 
sic eadem res et Pater et Filius necnon Spiritus 
Sanctus ab utroque procedens.” It would be 
impossible to give a clearer explanation than this 
of the Consubstantiality of the Three Divine 
Persons in the sense of absolute tavrovoia. 


THE HERESY (OF TRITHEISM 261 


y) On the basis of this pregnant conciliar definition 
theologians have attempted to answer the difficult ques- 
tion: Of what kind is the distinction between Na- 
ture and Person, or between summa res absolute and 
_ summa res relative? It is evident from the explanation 
of the Fourth Lateran Council, which we have just 
quoted, that the distinction in question cannot be a 
real distinction. For if the Three Divine Persons were 
really distinct from their common Nature, the God- 
head would contain four separate entities, viz.: Nature, 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. On the other hand, it is 
not sufficient to posit a purely logical distinction (dis- 
tinctio rationis ratiocinantis); else the Three Persons 
would coalesce with the Divine Substance — they would 
cease to be realities and sink to the level of mere modes 
of manifestation, as was alleged by the Sabellians. ‘The 
truth must lie somewhere between these heretical ex- 
tremes. Precisely where, is not so easy to determine. 
“There are three Scholastic distinctions which can 
be applied here without trenching on revealed dogma. 
They are: the modal distinction of Durandus, the formal 
distinction of Duns Scotus, and the virtual distinction 
of St. Thomas Aquinas. In applying these distinctions, 
however, we find that the modal and the formal, if 
pressed to their ultimate logical conclusions, entail a 
species of composition altogether inadmissible in the 
Godhead, and also a real composition in each separate 
Divine Person. According to Durandus, this composi- 
tion is one of essence and “ mode”; according to Scotus, 
its elements are essence and “ formange These incon- 
gruities have led the great majority of Catholic theolo- 
gians to adopt the virtual distinction of the Thomists.7 


17 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, 
pp. 151 sqq. 


262 THE DIVINE PERSONS 


According to this theory, the one “summa res” is 
both absolute and relative in such wise that, in the 
simultaneous discharge of an absolute and a relative 
- function, it is formaliter unum et virtualiter multiplex. 
Hence the Divine Nature differs from each Divine 
Person by the so-called distinctio rationis ratiocinatae 
sive virtualis sive cum fundamento in re, of which Car- 
dinal Cajetan says: “ Absolutum et relativum ita 1bi 
sunt, ac si essent distincta, et rursus ita [una summa 
res] exercet munus utriusque, ac si essent distincta.” * 
This distinction is based on the same principle as the 
current one between the “essential” knowledge which 
ene to the whole Trinity, qua absolute Spirit, and 
the “notional” understanding which is proper to the 
Father alone, qua Begettor of His consubstantial ae 
(Cfr. also the distinction between “ essential” and “ no- 
tional” volition or love). 

c) Among the more recent pronouncements of the ec- 
clesiastical teaching office regarding the dogma of the 
Blessed Trinity, special mention must be made of the 
dogmatic Bull “ Auctorem fidei,” issued by Pope Pius 
VI against the Council of Pistoia, A.D. 1786. This 
Bull rejects the formula “ Deus in tribus personis dis- 
tinctus”’ (instead of distinctis) as suspicious. Gtn- 
ther’s Tritheistic teaching was censured by the S. ‘Con- 
gregation of the Index on January 8, 1857, and formally 
condemned by Pope Pius IX in a lengthy letter, ad- 
dressed June 15, 1857, to Cardinal Geissel, Archbishop 
of Cologne. A provincial council held with the approval 
of Pius IX at Cologne, in 1860, cited all the Trinitarian 
definitions which we have adduced in this volume as an 

18 In S. Theol., 1am, qu. 39, art. Trino, thes. 21; more briefly by 


1. This subtle problem is treated Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. II, 
exhaustively by Franzelin, De Deo 3rd ed., pp. 327 sqq., Friburgi 1906. 


THE HERESY: OF TRITHEISM 263 


inexpugnable._ bulwark of the orthodox faith against the 
vagaries of Giinther. And the schema which the Com- 
mission on Dogma had prepared for the Vatican Coun- 
cil shows that the Holy See intended to brand Gunther’s 
errors as formally heretical.’ 

Reapincs:—P. Fournier, Etudes sur Joachim de Flore et 


ses Doctrines, Paris 1909.— Dom J. Chapman, O. S. B., art. “ Tri- 
theists,” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XV. 


19 Cfr. Conrad Martin, Collect. I: “ Die numerische Wesenseinheit 
Documentorum Vatic., pp. 21 sqq., der drei gottlichen Personen,” Ratis- 
Paderb. 1873; Katschthaler, Zwei bon 1868. 

Thesen fiir das allgemeine Concil, 


SECTION 2 


THE TEACHING OF REVELATION 


I, SACRED SCRIPTURE.—Though we have re- 
peatedly spoken of the Consubstantiality of the 
Three Divine Persons, it remains for us to prove 
from Scripture that this Consubstantiality is not 
to be conceived after the manner of the harmony 
of thought and sentiment that sometimes unites 
intimate friends, nor yet in a merely generic 
way, as if there were “one Godhead in three 
Gods,” but strictly as identity of nature or tatrovata. 
Taken in this sense the unity of the Divine Nature 
forms a special chapter of the revealed teaching 
on the Trinity. 


a) Monotheism is the fundamental dogma of the Old 
Testament, and it has not been abrogated, but re-affirmed 
and re-inculcated in the New.* In such passages as 
1 Cor, VIII, 6,7 and; Deut. .X XXII, 39,° Holy Scripture 
denies the possibility of Tritheism or any other species 
of polytheism. There is but one alternative: Either 
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost subsist in 
three separate and distinct natures, or in one nature 

1Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His See ye that I alone am, and there 
Knowability, Essence, and Attri- is no other God besides me.’’ 
butes, pp. 212 sqq. 3“ Nullus est Deus nisi unus — 


2‘ Videte quod ego sim solus et There is but one God.” 
non sit alius Deus praeter me — 


264. 


* THE TEACHING OF REVELATION 265 


only. If they subsisted in three separate and distinct 
natures, there would be three Gods,—a belief which 
the Bible unmistakably condemns. If they subsist in 
one Divine Nature, we have the Christian Trinity as 
unequivocally taught throughout the New Testament. 
Consequently Tritheism is unscriptural, Let no one 
object that the term “unus Deus” admits of being in- 
terpreted in a specific or a generic sense. For wherever 
“several individuals of the same species or genus coexist, 
none of them can truthfully assert: I alone am and 
there is none other besides me. 


b) A special argument for our thesis can be 
derived from Christ’s sermon “in Solomon’s 
porch,” which culminates in the words: “Ego 
et Pater unum sumus—I and the Father are 
one.”* This was a favorite quotation with the 
Fathers. Thus St. Augustine says in the thirty- 
sixth of his Homilies on the Gospel of St. John: 
“Quod dixit ‘unum, liberat te ab Ario; quod 
dixit ‘sumus, liberat te a Sabellio— The word 
‘one’ in this passage excludes Arianism; the 
word ‘are’ excludes Sabellianism.”° In order 
to understand what kind of unity Christ means 
._ when He says, “I and the Father are one,’ we 
must examine the context. nh 

a) The outstanding thought of the preceding verses 


is that Christ gives life everlasting to His sheep by 
virtue of His own personal dominion and power, and 


~ 4John X, 30. u 
5 Tract. in Ioa., 36, n. 9. (Migne, P. L., XXXV, 1668.) 


266 THE DIVINE PERSONS 


that “no one shall pluck them out of [His] hand.” 
To justify this claim He affirms: “That which my 
Father hath given me, is greater than all,’ and He pro- 
ceeds to explain by first stating a truth which the Jews 
were quite ready to admit —viz.: that “no one can 
snatch ’”’ His sheep “out of the hand of [His] Father.” 
Then, after the manner of a minor premiss in a syllogism, 
follows the verse: “I and the Father are one,” by 
‘which Christ evidently means to say: I and the Father 
have the same nature, and consequently possess the 
same power. The conclusion, which figures as a sort 
of thesis at the head of the argument, is evident, viz.: 
Therefore, “I give [my sheep] life everlasting; ... 
and no man shall pluck them out of my hand.” 

It is worth while to con this important text somewhat 
more minutely. The preceding portion of the context 
reads: “Et ego vitam aeternam do eis [scil. ovibus 
meis|, et non peribunt in aeternum, et non rapiet eas 
quisquam de manu mea. Pater meus quod dedit mihi, 
maius omnibus est: et nemo potest rapere de manu 
Patris met. Ego et Pater unum sumus— And I give 
them [7. e., my sheep] life everlasting; and they shall 
not perish for ever, and no man shall pluck them out 
of my hand. That which my Father hath given me 
is greater than all: and no one can snatch them out of 
the hand of my Father. I and the Father are one.’ ® 
“That which my Father hath given me is greater than 
all,’ is here alleged as the reason why Christ can give 
life everlasting to His sheep and prevent any one from 
plucking them out of His hand. Now, we know from 
numerous parallel passages,’ that the predicate expressed 
in the phrase “ maius omnibus” can mean nothing else 


6 John X, 28-30. 
7 Cfr., e. g., John XVI, 5; XVII, 10, etc. 


= 


TRE TRACHINGION REVELATION: (“67 


than the Divine Nature (summa res infinite perfecta), 
in so far as it is communicated, immediately and undi- 
minished, by the begetting Father to His begotten Son. 
“ Dedit mihi” is therefore synonymous with “ gignéndo 
miht communicavit.” Consequently, the Son, by this 
communication to Him of the Divine Essence on the 
part of the Father, has precisely the same power as the 
Father, with this sole difference, that the Father has the 
Divine..Nature.and power of Himself, while the Son 
derives it from the Father. Taking this truth for the 
antecedent of an enthymeme, the conclusion: “JI and 
the Father are one,” can only mean that the Father 
and the Son, as possessing the same Nature and the 
same power, are absolutely consubstantial, 7. ¢., iden- 
tical in essence. St. Athanasius called particular at- 
tention to this when he said: “. . . ué scilicet eandem 
amborum divinitatem (ravrétnta tHs OedtyTos) unamque 
naturam (évornta THs ovcias) esse doceret —In order to 
show the identity of Godhead in both, and the unity of 
Nature.” § 

This argument is not weakened by the circumstance 
that the textus Sik lel has: ‘O warnp pov, os d€dwxé por, 
mévrov peifwv eori. For, as the explanation given by St. 
Chrysostom ® shows, this variant affects merely the form, 
and not the substance of the argument based upon John 
X, ‘20. 

8B) The verses which follow (John X, 34 sqq.) posi- 
tively confirm the argument. The Jews obviously un- ' 
derstood Christ’s dictum, “I and the Father are one,” 
to mean perfect consubstantiality; for they “took up — 
stones to stone him for blasphemy.” ‘“ For a good work 
we stone thee not,” they explained, “but for blasphemy ; 

8 Or. Contr. Arian., 3, 3 (Migne, 9 Hom. in Ioa., 61, 2 (Migne, 


P. G., XXVI, 327). PBGe, LEX) 338)'saqe). 
18 


268 THE DIVINE PERSONS 


and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself 
God.” 2° How did Jesus meet this accusation? Did He 
retract what He had said? Did He tell the Jews that 
they misunderstood Him? No; He repeated His previous 
statement and confirmed it by an argumentum a minori 
ad mawus. “Is it not written in your law,” He asks, 
iL, said!\‘'you *are:.gods’'?’ If ihe called, them. gods;to 
whom the word of God was spoken, and the Scripture 
cannot be broken; do you say of him whom the Father 
hath sanctified and sent into the world: ‘ Thou blas- 
phemest,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”™ 
In corroboration of His claim, Christ points to His mira- 
cles: “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me 
not. But if I do, though you will not believe me, believe 
the works: that you may know and believe that the Father 
is in me, and I in the Father.” ** By thus accentuating 
‘His immanence in the Father (Perichoresis), He merely 
-repeats in other words what He had said before: “I 
and the Father are one.” It is because He clearly as- 
serted His consubstantiality with God the Father, that 
the Jews became convinced that He blasphemed; and 
to emphasize His consubstantiality with the Father 
He repeated His assertion in the words: “I am the 
Son of God.” This also explains why His adversaries 
“sought to take him,” so that He found it advisable to 
10 John X, 33:. “De bono opere tura, quem Pater sanctificavit et 
non lapidamus te, sed de blasphemia: misit in mundum, vos dicitis: quia 
et quia tu, homo cum sis, facts blasphemas, quia dixi: Fihus Det 
teipsum Deum (roveis oeauvtoy sum?” 
@cdr).” ‘12John X, 37 sqq.: “St non 
11 John X, 34 saqq.: “ Respondit  facio opera Patris mei, nolite cre- 
eis Iesus: Nonne scriptum est in dere mihi; si autem facto, ef st 
lege vestra: Quia ego dixi, dit mihi non vultis credere, operibus 
estis? [Ps. LXXXI, 6]. St illos  credite, ut cognoscatis et credatts, 


dixit deos, ad quos sermo Dei quia Pater in me est, et ego tn 
factus est, et non potest solvi scrip- Patre.” 


TRADITION 269 


“escape out of their hands.’!% This interpretation 
has ample support in the writings of the Fathers. 
“ Had they [the Father and the Son] been two,” says 
St. Athanasius, “‘ He [Christ] would not have said: ‘I 
and the Father are one,’ but ‘I am the Father,’ or ‘I 
andthe ‘Father ams’... ; the -word’ “1? “déclaresthe 
Person of the Son, and the word ‘ Father’ as evidently 
expresses him who begat the Son, and the word ‘ One’ 
the one Godhead and His consubstantiality.” 14 


2. TRADITION.—Faydit, Cudworth, Placidus 
Sttrmer, O.S.B., and others, have accused the 
Nicene Fathers of uencion because, as they 
claimed, these Fathers in their naive ignorance 
had understood the term epoovowy as denoting 
.a merely generic unity. Following the example 
aa Sabinus of Heraclea, who was a Macedonian 
heretic,” Adolph Harnack boldly charged the 
Bishops assembled at Nicaea with intellectual in- 
capacity. He says there were no really able 
theologians among them, and adds: “The unan- 
imous adoption of the synodal decree can be ex- 
plained only on the assumption that the question 
at issue exceeded the mental capacity of most 
of the Bishops present.” ** This utterance is 
not surprising in the mouth of a writer who is 


13John X, 39: “ Quaerebant Literature, p. 271, London [s. a.]. 
ergo (ovv mdX\wv) eum apprehendere, Cfr. on this topic especially Franze- 
et exivit de manibus eorum.” lin, De Verbo Incarnato, thes. 7, 

14 Orat., Contr. Arian., 4, D. 9. ed. 4, Romae 1893. 

(The @rains of S. Athanasius 15 Cfr. Socrat., Hist. Eccl., yh 8. 
Against the Arians in the Ancient 16 DOSER NTS. Vol. Th Pp. 


and Modern Library of Theological 222. 


270 THE DIVINE PERSONS 


satisfied that “the Logos-époovews formula simply 
leads to absurdity,” and that “Athanasius toler- 
ated this absurdity, and the Council of Nicaea 
formally sanctioned it.” *’ According to the 
theory of this school it was St. Augustine who 
invented the strictly monotheistic conception of 
the unity of the Godhead, and introduced it into 
what is properly called ecclesiastical Tradition. 
How unwarranted this theory is will appear from 
the following considerations. 


a) The very method which the Nicene Fathers 
chose to defend the éuoovowv against the attacks of 
Arianism, proves that they conceived the Consubstan- 
tiality of Son and Father as absolute identity of es- 
sence (tatroveia). The Arian and Eunomian objections 
may be summarized thus: “Either God is one, or 
Father and Son are separate and distinct Persons. If 


God is one, then Sabellius is right in denying a.distinction 


of Persons. If the Father and the Son are separate 
and distinct Persons, then the Godhead is divided by 
the act of Divine Generation, and we have Ditheism. 
Consequently the Son is not éuoovows with the Father.” 

Eunomius in particular insisted that Gedtns yéyovev eis 
Sud8a. Had the Nicene Fathers been Tritheists, they 
would manifestly have accepted the Arian conclusion, 
instead of Com Patiie it so energetically. For no one 
who took époovela to mean mere unity of species or 
genus, could consistently refuse to accept the logical 
inference that Generation and Spiration effect in the Di- 
“vine Nature an intrinsic scission by which the Father 


17 Ad. Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, Vol. Il, p. 221. 


TRADITION 271 


is “God” other than the Son. The Nicene Fathers en- 
deavor to show, on the contrary, that the act of Gener- 
ation in no wise involves a multiplication of the Divine 
Nature, and therefore does not impair the absolute sim- 
plicity of essence proper to the Godhead. As a repre- 
sentative utterance, we may cite the subjoined passage 
from the writings of St. Athanasius: “The Fathers 
of the Council... were compelled ... to resay and 
rewrite more distinctly still, what they had said before, 
that the Son is consubstantial (énoovc.v) with the 
Father; by way of signifying that the Son is from the 
Father, and not merely like (dowv), but is the same 
“by likeness (sabrév 77 dpowoen). . .. For since the Gen- 
eration of the Son from the Father is not according 
to the nature of men, but in a manner worthy of God, 
when we hear the word époovo1ws, we must not follow 
the human senses, nor invent divisions and scissions, 
but, as when we conceive what is incorporeal, we will 
not rend asunder the unity of Nature and the identity 
of the light (ri évdrnta tis picews Kal thy TabtéTyTa Tod 


gurtds).”’ 18 


b) The orthodoxy of the post-Nicene Bishops mani- 
fested itself in a manner that might almost be called 
dramatic at a council held in Alexandria (A.D. 362) 
for the express purpose of restoring peace. At this 
council, when the assembled Fathers had got into a wran- 
gle over the use of the terms otcia and irdcraais, 
because some of them thought that the formula zpeis 
_tmoordceas savored of the heretical teaching embodied in 
the Latin phrase “tres substantiae,’*® St. Athanasius 
ts De Decr. Nic. Syn., n. 20 sqq. II, 2nd ed., pp. 124 sqq., § 14, 
On the more conciliatory position Freiburg 1895. 


taken by St. Cyril of Jerusalem, see 19 Supra, p. 227. 
Schwane, Dogmengeschichie, Vol. 


va 


272 THE DIVINE, PERSONS 


by a clever cross-examination brought out the fact that 


all really held the same faith. This led St: Gregory 


Nazianzen to observe: “It was indeed a ludicrous, or 
rather a regrettable incident; there appeared to be diver- 
gency of faith where there was merely a dispute about 
words.” 2° The Council finally permitted the use of both 


' locutions (viz.: One Hypostasis and Three Hypostases), 


on condition that in employing the former phrase there 
be no imputation of Sabellianism, and in enunciating the 
latter, the Arian heresy of three separate and distinct 
Gods be expressly disavowed. But it soon became nec- 
essary to define the dogma still more clearly. St. Basil 
was the first who endeavored formally to justify the 
phrase “ Three Hypostases,” and to give it universal 
currency. = 

c) It is easy, in addition, to quote express Patristic 
texts showing that the Fathers understood opoovsia to 
mean radrovola. St. Basil, for example, in rejecting 
Ditheism and Tritheism, writes: ‘Only one God the 
Father, only one God the Son, not two Gods, because 
the Son is identical with the Father (éedy rairoryra 
éxer 6 vids mpos tov matépa). For I do not behold one 


Deity in the Father, and another in the Son, nor one 


Nature here, and another there.”?? St. Gregory of 
Nazianzus anticipates the scientific terminology of a later 
age when he says: “Neque enim Filius est Pater, 
nam unus Pater: tamen Filius est id, quod Pater. Nec 
Spiritus est Filius, quia ex Deo est, nam unus unigenitus ; 
tamen Spiritus est id, quod Filius. Tres sunt unum 
deitate (& r& tpla TH OedtyT), Unum est tres proprietati- 


r~ 200r, 21, 35 (Migne, P. G., 22Hom., 24, 3 (Migne, P. G., 
| XXXV, 13126), XXXI, 604 sq.). 


21 Cfr. Jos. Schwane, Dogmenge- 
schichte, Vol. II, 2nd ed., p. 151. 


TRADITION 273 


bus (76 ey tpia rais iSwryo. = imoctdcecw) — The Son is 
not the Father, for there is but one Father: yet the 
Son is that which the Father is. Nor is the Holy 
Ghost the Son, for the reason that He is from God, be- 
cause there is but one Only-begotten ; yet the Holy Ghost 
is that which the Son is. The Three are one Godhead, 


‘and the One Godhead is threefold with regard to its 


Properties ‘[1.\.e., the Hypostases].” 28° °The unknown. 


“author-of the Libri XII de Trinitate (believed by some 


to be Vigilius of Tapsus, by others St. Athanasius), 
cries out in holy anger: “ Maledictus, qui propter tria 
nomina personarum tres deos confitetur — Cursed be he 
who, because there are Three Personal Names, professes 
three Gods.” 24 A conclusive and definitive testimony, 


“which expressly echoes the faith of the preceding ages, 


is this of St. Augustine: “ Ommnes, quos legere potut, 
qui ante me scripserunt de Trinitate, quae Deus est... 
hoc intenderunt secundum Scripturas docere, quod Pater 
et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus unius eiusdemque substan- 
tiae inseparabili aequalitate divinam insinuent unitatem, 
ideoque non sint tres dii, sed unus Deus — All those 
whom I have been able to read, who have written be- 
fore me concerning the Trinity, who is God, have 
purposed to teach, according to the Scriptures, this 
doctrine, that the Father and the Son and the Holy 
Spirit intimate a divine unity of one and the same sub- 
stance in an indivisible equality ; and therefore that they 
are not three Gods, but one God.” > This declaration 
of the great Bishop of Hippo embodies one of the most 
telling arguments against Tritheism. 

d) There seems to be one weak link in the Patristic 
chain of evidence, and that is the teaching of St. Gregory 


~<28 Or., 31, 9. 25 De Trinit., I, 4, 7. Haddan’s 
24In Migne, P. L., LXII, 278. translation, p. 7. 


274 THE DIVINE PERSONS 

of Nyssa, who puts the essential unity of the Three Di- 
vine Persons on a level with the essential unity proper to 
three human beings. But if we consider that, as a phi- 
losopher, Gregory advocated Platonic ultra-realism and 
conceived the Noe unity of human individuals as a 
genuine ratrovoia, we shall be inclined to consider the 
remarkable parallel this Saint has drawn between divine 
and human unity as a confirmation rather than an in- 
dictment of his orthodoxy. If it were true, as he held, 
that human nature is numerically the same in all men,?° 
and that “many men is said by an abuse of the 
term, not in its strict sense,” ?? that, therefore, “ Peter 
and Paul and Barnabas are but one man,” 28 it would 
be perfectly orthodox to say that “Jgitur unus nobis 
confitendus est Deus iuxta Scripturae testimonium: 
Audi Israel, Dominus Deus tuus Dominus unus est,2® 
etiamst vox deitatis permeat sanctam Trinitatem.” ®° 


READINGS : — Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, Vols. III and V, 2nd 
ed. Freiburg 1877 and 1886— Oswald, Trinitatslehre, §10, 
Paderborn 1888.— Albert a Bulsano, Instit. Theologiae Dogmat. 
Specialis, ed. Gfr. a Graun, tom. I, pp. 174-200, Oeniponte 1893. 
— Kleutgen, De Ipso Deo, 1. II, qu. 2, cap. 1-5, Ratisbonae 1881. 
— Hurter, Compendium, t. II, ed. 9a, thes. 114-116, Oeniponte 
1896.— Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. I, §112, Freiburg 1873 H. P. 
Liddon, The Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Chvrist, 
pp. 528 sqq., London 1867. 


26 els O€ év act 6 dvOpwros, 

27 héyovrat 5é€ moddol dvOpwrot 
KGTAXpHoTLKwS Kai ov KUpiws, 

28 These quotations will be found 
in Migne, P. G., XLV, 180, 

29 Deut, VI, 4. 


30 Gregory of Nyssa, Ad Ablabium 
(Migne, P. G., XLV, 119.) Cfr. 
Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 
300 sqq., Freiburg and St, Louis 
1908, 


nda 


CEE TRIE 


ONENESS OF EXTERNAL OPERATION OF THE 
THREE DIVINE PERSONS 


Oneness of external operation in the Blessed 
Trinity follows as a corollary from the unity of 
the Divine Nature, and therefore scarcely needs 
separate proof. For the sake of completeness, 
however, we shall elaborate (1) a Scriptural, 
(2) a traditional, and (3) a theological argu- 
ment in support of this particular dogma. 

At a Lateran Council held by Pope Martin 
I, in the year 649, 105 Bishops unanimously 
condemned Monotheletism. True, this synod 
lacks the authority of a general council; but 
by being incorporated into the proceedings of 
the Sixth Ecumenical Council, A.D. 680, its 
canons acquired whatever universal authority 
they may have originally lacked. This Lateran 
Council of 649 affirms that in the Blessed Trinity 
“will, power, operation, and dominion are one.” * 
This unity is explained by the Fourth General 
Council of the Lateran (A. D. 1215) to be one by 


1 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n, 254. Hardouin, Concil., t, 
III, pp. 922, 1078 sq. 
275 


276 ONENESS OF EXTERNAL OPERATION 


which the Three Divine Persons are “unum uni- 
versorum principium, creator omnium visibilium 
et invisibilium — The one principle of all things, 
the Creator of all things visible and invisible.” ? 
To remove every vestige of doubt in the matter, 
the Decretum pro Iacobitis (A. D. 1439) places 
the creative power of the Trinity on a par with the 
unity of the principle of Spiration that reposes 
in the Father and the Son, and from which the 
Holy Ghost proceeds unica spiratione.® 

I. THE ARGUMENT FROM SACRED SCRIPTURE. 
—Christ on various occasions formally identified 
His divine operation with that of His Father. 
Compare, e. g., John V,17: “Pater meus usque 
modo operatur et ego operor — My father work- 
eth until now, and I work,” with John V, 19: 
“Non potest Filius a se facere quidquam, nist 
quod viderit Patrem facientem — The Son cannot 
do any thing of Himself, but what he seeth the 
Father doing.” These texts, while they clearly 
‘show a distinction of Persons and origin, also 
intimate unity of action. 

Other texts identify the operation of Father 
and Son even more positively. Thus John XIV, 
10: “A me ipso non loquor, Pater autem in 
me manens tpse facit omnia — I speak not of my- 
self, but the Father who abideth in me, he doth 


2Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 428. 
& Supra, pp. 230 sq. 


PROVED FROM SCRIPTURE 277 


the works.” It is in the light of passages such 
as these that we must interpret the word “simi- 
ter” (epows) in John V, 19: “Quaecunque 
“enim ille [Pater] fecerit, haec et Filius similiter 
facit — For what things soever he [the Father] 
doth, these the Son also doth in like manner.” 
“Non ait,” comments St. Augustine, “quaecunque 
factt Pater, facit et Filius alia similia, sed: Que- 
cunque Pater facit, haec eadem et Filius facit si- 
militer. Quae ille, haec et ipse: mundum Pater, 
mundum Filius, mundum Spiritus Sanctus—[The 
Catholic faith] does not say that the Father made 
something, and the Son made some other similar 
thing; but what the Father made, that also the 
Son made in like manner. What the One made, 
that the Other also. The Father [made] the 
world, the Son [made] the world, the Holy 
Ghost [made] the world.” * 


This argument is corroborated by the manner in which 
Sacred Scripture appropriates one and the same oper- 
ation now to the Father, now to the Son, now to the 
Holy Ghost, and then again to the Godhead as such. 
This procedure is intelligible only on the supposition 
that the Three Divine Persons are absolutely identical 
in essence and operation.® St. Augustine convincingly 
argues: “Si enim alia per Patrem, alia per Filium, iam 
non omnia per Patrem nec omnia per Filium. Si autem 
omnia per Patrem et omnia per Filium, [ergo] eadem 
per Patrem, quae per Filium. Aequalis est ergo Patrt 


4 Tract. in Ioan., 20, 3 saq. 5 Supra, pp. 29 sq. 


278 ONENESS OF EXTERNAL OPERATION 


Filius et inseparabilis est operatio Patris et Filii — For 
if some things were made by the Father, and some by 
the Son, then all things were not made by the Father, 
nor all things by the Son; but if all things were made 
by the Father, and all hintes by the Son, then the same 
things were made by the Father and by the Son. The 
Son, therefore, is equal with the Father, and the work- 
ing of the Father and the Son is indivisible.” ® 


2. THE ARGUMENT FROM TRADITION.—The 
procedure of deducing the unity of the Divine 
Nature from the unity of the divine operations, 
and vice versa, was well known to the Fathers. 


Thus St. Cyril of Alexandria tersely observes, that 
“to attribute individual operations to each separate Di- 
vine Person, is tantamount to saying that there are three 
separate and distinct Gods." A considerable number of 
the Fathers condense the dogma into a single brief phrase, 
which, after the manner of a mathematical formula, ex- 
presses the whole teaching of the Church in the tersest 
possible manner, wviz.: “ Pater per Filium in S piritu 
_Sancto omnia operatur.”* This formula duly stresses 
every essential point of the dogma: the Trinity of the Di- 
vine Persons, their succession as to origin, their identity 
of Nature, and the unity of their operation. The Patristic 
argument is drawn out in detail by Petavius.? It is so 
overwhelming that we can brush aside as irrelevant and 
trivial the objection which some writers base on the 
custom of certain Fathers of representing the Three 
6 St. Augustine, De Trinitate, I, rep., 1, 28. (Migne, P. G;, XXVI, 
6, 12. Haddan’s translation, p. 13. 595). 


me % Contr. Nestor, IV, 2. 9 De Trintt;, IV, 1s. 
8 Cfr. St. Athanasius, Ep. ad Se- 


THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 279 


Divine Persons as taking counsel with one another, as 
agreeing upon some common resolve or decree, or as 
co-operating in some common cause. St. Cyril of Jeru- 
salem “makes a distinction between the divine oper- 
ations ad extra, appropriating them to the Three Divine 
Persons separately, and thus seems to posit a certain 
scission in the immanent life of the Godhead. But 
his utterances must be interpreted in accord with the 
law of Appropriations, especially since he does not con- 
sistently carry out the distinction.” 1° 


3. THE THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.—The unity 
of operation in the Blessed Trinity is really but a 
simple inference from the dogma that the Three 
Divine Persons are absolutely identical in essence. 


Philosophy teaches that “ Operart sequitur esse, 1. @., 
naturam.”’ If the nature of a. thing is its “‘ principle of 
operation,” it follows that the number of principles of 
operation, and their specific manifestations (e. g., in- 
tellect and freewill in spiritual natures), depend on 
the number of active essences or natures. “ Tot 
operationes, quot naturae.’ As we must distinguish 
in Christ, the Godman, a twofold operation, the one 
divine, the other human, corresponding to His double 
nature, so, conversely, if the Father, the Son, and 
the Holy Ghost are not three natures, but one, they 
can have but one common operatio ad extra. To assert 
that the divine operation is not one, is to teach Trithe- 
ism. Had they not harbored Tritheistic conceptions of 
the Godhead, Raymund Lully and Gunther could never 
have taught that each Divine Person operates separately 
ad extra. Though from unity of Nature to unity of 


10 Jos. Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, Vol. U1, 2nd ed., p, 126. 


280 ONENESS OF EXTERNAL OPERATION 


operation in the Blessed Trinity is just as easy a step 
as from a duality of nature to Dyotheletism in Christ, 
(because a multiplication of natures always entails a mul- 
tiplication of operations), the Church did not content 
herself with laying down the general principle, but by 
an express definition condemned in advance Gunther’s 
error that “When God reveals Himself to His crea- 
tures, He must reveal Himself hypostatically, 1. é., each 


Peenarait divine operation must be attributed as opus 


operatum to a separate Divine Person, to the exclusion 


of the other two.”  Giinther’s lapse into Tritheism 


convincingly shows how false was the view he took of the 
relation of the divine operations to the different Persons 
of the Blessed Trinity. Any attempt to go beyond mere 
Appropriation is sure to result in a scission of the Di- 
vine Essence, 


Reapincs:—*Franzelin, De Deo Trino, thes. 12.— Kleutgen, 
Devil pson Deo 1 Wi ga! 5. \capa2, art 3 Hurter, Compendium 
Theol. Dogmat., t. II, thes. 117.— Kleutgen, Theologie der Vor- 
zeit, Vol. I, and ed., pp. 379 sqq., Miinster 1867.—H. Schell, 
Das Wirken des dreieinigen Gottes, Mainz 1885.— Petavius, De 
Mitt LV is! 

11 Ginther, Vorschule zur spekulativen Theologie, 2nd ed., Vol. Tsp. 
369, Wien 1848. 


CHAR TION: ti 


THE UNITY OF MUTUAL INEXISTENCE, OR 
PERICHORESIS 


I. DEFINITION OF PERICHORESIS.—By the 
Perichoresis of the Three Divine Persons we 
mean their mutual Interpenetration and Inexist- 
ence by virtue of their Consubstantiality, their 
‘immanent Processions, and the divine Relations. 


iin ene the technical term for this mutual Inexist- 
ence iS mepixepyors, Or, still more emphatically, ovpmepi- 
_xeopnors. The Latins call it circumincessio, or, as the 
later Scholastics wrote it, circuminsessio. Both the Greek 
and the Latin terms designate exactly the same thing, 
but they reflect somewhat different conceptions thereof. 
“While the Greeks conceived the [Divine] Processions 
more after the manner of a temporal succession along 
a straight line,” says Oswald, “the [later] Latins pic- 
tured it to themselves after the manner of juxtaposition 
in space, as extension in a plain. ... This is why the 
Latins derived their technical term from circuminsidere, 
i. e., to sit or dwell in one another, while the Greeks 
got theirs from mepixwpeiy, which means to go or move 
within one another.” We have already called attention 
to a similar divergency in the formulas expressing the 
Procession of the Holy Ghost, with regard to which the 


1 Trinitétslehre, p. 191, Paderborn 1888. 
281 


(282 UNITY OF INEXISTENCE 


Latins commonly say, er Patre Filioque, while the Greeks 
prefer ex Patre per Filium. Petavius was probably mis- 
taken when he preferred the Greek and the early Scholas- 
tic modes of expression to that of the later Schoolmen. 
The Greek Fathers, besides zepiywpeivy eis dAAHAOvs, also 
employed the locution év dAAnAas ai tzooraces cioiv.? 
Suarez? and Ruiz * preferred to base Perichoresis on 
the attribute of immensity rather than upon the unity 
of the Divine Nature. Each of the Three Divine Per- 
sons, argued these eminent theologians, must be where 
the other Two are. It is true that the Three Divine 
Persons together indwell in creatures not only by virtue 
of Perichoresis, but likewise by omnipresence. But 
omnipresence is so far from constituting the formal 
essence of Perichoresis, that even a Tritheist could 
without inconsistency teach the simultaneous pres- 
ence and indwelling of three Gods in a creature. 
Christ clearly affirms the divine Perichoresis when He 
says: ‘I am in the Father, and the Father is in me.’ *® 
On the other hand, St. Paul’s famous dictum: “In 
him we live, and move, and are,’® merely asserts the 
immensity of God, not the Trinitarian Perichoresis. For, 
as Petavius rightly observes,’ “though the mind abstract 
entirely from the notion of place and location in space, 
and regard solely the Divine Hypostases considered in 
themselves and absolutely, Perichoresis and the mutual 
inexistence of Person in Person will still be there; be- 
2Cfr. Ioannes Damasc., De Fide  soluteque spectentur hypostases di- 
Orth., I, 8. vinae, nihilominus tamen mepixw- 


3De Trinit., IV, 16, sub finem. pnoi et mutua in seipsis existentia 
4De Trinit., disp. 107, sect. 7. personarum illic erit; quippe et una 


5 John XIV, 11. posita poni necesse erit alteram, nec 

6 Acts XVII, 28. a se invicem separari poterunt, et 

1 De Trinit.,. IV, n..5: ‘Nam altera intime coniuncta erit altert 
etsi loci et ‘ubi’ notio omnis ex- in eaque inerit et extstet.” 


cludatur enimo, ac solae per se ab- 


PROOF OF PERICHORESIS 283 


cause if one be posited it will be necessary to posit the 
others they cannot be separated from one another, but 
each will remain intimately united with each and all 
three will mutually inexist.” Hence the Perichoresjs 
'of the Blessed Trinity cannot be adequately explained 
by the divine attribute of immensity. 

If we compare Perichoresis with Consubstantiality 
(époovola, or better Tavrovoia), we find that the two no- 
tions are related to each other as effect is related to 
cause. The ontological reason for the mutual Inexist- 
_ence or Indwelling of the Three Divine Persons is 
primarily their possession of one and the same Divine 
Nature or Essence. “ Perichoresis in the Godhead orig- 
inates in the unity of the Divine Essence,” says Petavius, 
“ . . and it consists in this, that one Person cannot be 
divided or separated from another, but they mutually 
exist in one another without confusion and without 
detriment to the distinction between them.”® This does 
not, of course, preclude the existence of other secondary 
sources Of Perichoresis, such as the Divine Proceésions 
and Relations. 


2. THE PRooF oF PrricHorEstis.—The De- 
cretum pro lacobitis (A.D. 1439) expressly 
bases the Perichoresis of the Three Divine Per- 
sons on identity of Essence. “Ommia [in Deo] 
“sunt unum, ub non obviat relationis oppositio. 
Propter hanc unitatem Pater est totus in Fiho, 
totus in Spiritu Sancto; Filius totus est in Patre, 


Sf Tlepexwpnocs in divinis ex sed citra confusionem et servato 
unitate essentiae oritur ... et in discrimine insunt in se invicem.’ 
€0 consistit, quod dividi et separari De Trinit., li c. 
persona una non potest ab altera, 


19 


284 UNITY OF INEXISTENCE 


totus m Spiritu Sancto; Spiritus Sanctus totus 
est in Patre, totus in Filio— All things in God 
are one, except where there is opposition of Re- 
lation. Because of this unity, the Father is 
wholly in the Son, and wholly in the Holy Ghost; 
the Son is wholly in the Father, and wholly in 
the Holy Ghost; and the Holy Ghost is wholly 
in the Father, and wholly in the Son.’”® This 
doctrine undoubtedly forms part of the deposit 
of faith. St. Thomas demonstrates it by three 
arguments, of which one is based on the divine 
_ tabrovoia, another on the origins, and a third on 
the mutual Relations of the Divine Persons. 

a) The first and main source of the Trinitarian 
Perichoresis is the Consubstantiality of the Three 
Persons, or their identity of Essence. Sufficient 
Scriptural proof for this proposition, at least in 
so far as it regards the First and Second Per- 
sons of the Blessed Trinity, was adduced by St. 
Athanasius, who from a well-known sermon of 
Jesus *® argues as follows: “For whereas the 
countenance and Godhead of the Father is the 
Being of the Son, it follows that the Son is in 
the Father and the Father in the Son. On this 
account and reasonably, having said before, ‘I 
and the Father are one,’ He added, ‘I in the 
Father and the Father in me,’ by way of show- 


9 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 703 sq. 
10 Supra, pp. 265 sq. 


PROOF OF PERICHORESIS 285 


ing the identity of Godhead and the unity of 


substance.” ** “That the Holy Ghost is included 
in this Divine Company we know from 1 Cor. 


II, 11: “Qms enim hominum scit, quae sunt 
hominis, nist spiritus hominis, qui in tpso est? 
Ita et quae Det sunt, nemo cognovit, mist 
Spiritus Dei (supply: qui in ipso est )— For what 
man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit 
of a man that is in him? So the things also 
that are of God no man knoweth but the Spirit 
of God [that is in Him]. St. Athanasius prob- 
ably found the bracketed clause, “qui in ipso est,” 
in his Bible, for he treats it like a verbal quo- 
tation.” 

The intrinsic connexion between Trinitarian 
Perichoresis and the Consubstantiality of the 
Three Divine Persons is perhaps most effectively 
brought out by those of the Fathers who em- 
ployed Perichoresis as a popular and intelligible 
middle term to demonstrate the essential identity 
of Father and Son against the Arians.” 


b) A secondary source of this mutual Immanence, 


according t to many Fathers, is the origin of the Three Di- 


vine Persons from one another, 7. e., the divine Proces- 
sions by mode of Generation and | Spiration. For inasmuch 
as the Logos is begotten as the “Divine Word” of the 


11 Contr. Arian., Or. 3, 3 (Migne, 12 Ep. ad Serap., 3 (Migne, P. G., 
P. Gx Vis 327). Newman’s trans- OX Wil; 626)s 
lation, Select Treatises of St. Atha- 13 Cfr. Petavius, De Trinit., IV, 
nasius, Vol. I, p. 361. 16; Ruiz, De Trinit., disp. 107, 


sect. 5. 


286 UNITY OF INEXISTENCE 


Father by the Father’s notional understanding, He is 


necessarily immanent in the Father, as the internal 


sade 


word or concept is immanent in the human intellect. 
“Ex mente enim et in mentem,”™* says St. Cyril of 
Alexandria, “verbum est semper, ideoque mens in 


‘verbo.® .. . Verbum manet in mente generante et men- 


tem generantem habet totaliter in se. . . et oportet simul 
existere cum Patre Filium et vicissim Patrem cum Filio 
— For the word is always of the mind and in the mind, 
and therefore the mind is in the word. . . . The word 
remains in the mind in which it is conceived, and con- 
tains that mind entirely within itself. . . . So it behooves 
the Son to exist simultaneously with the Father, and 
the Father to exist simultaneously with the Son.” St. 
Hilary expresses this truth more concisely thus: “ Deus 
in Deo, quia ex Deo Deus est — God is in God, because 
God is from God.” 17 The Holy Ghost, too, in conse- 
quence of His Procession by way of mutual love, re- 
poses deep down in the Principle which produces Him, 
as love reposes in the heart of a lover. ‘St. Ambrose aptly 
observes: “ Sicut Pater in Filio et Filius in Patre, ita 
Det Spiritus et Spiritus Christi et in Patre et in Filho, 
quia oris [==halitus| est spiritus— As the Father is in 
the Son, and the Son is in the Father, so the Spirit of God 


_and the Spirit of Christ is both in the Father and the Son, 


because He is the spirit [a breath] of the mouth.” *8 
There is Scriptural warrant for this mode of concéiving 
the divine Perichoresis. Cfr. John I, 18: “ Unigenitus, 
qui est in sinu Patris— The only begotten Son who is 
in the bosom of the Father.” The Greek original of 


14 éx vou Kat els your, » 17 De Trimt., IV, 10 (Migne, P. 
15 De Trinii., Dial. 2 (Migne, VELLA ON A 
P. G., LXXV, 7609). . 18 De Spiritu Sancto, III, 1. 


16 kai 6 vous év Oyu, 


PROOF OF PERICHORESIS : 287 


, this passage implies a movement ad intra, which is not 
fully brought out by either the Vulgate or the vernacular 


ali version: —‘O bovoyerns viosS 0 Ov (= Tepixywpor ) eis TOV 


-KOXTOV TOU TaTpds. 

c) The third and last source of Perichoresis are the 
Divine Relations, that is, the relative opposition of the 
‘Three Divine Persons to one another. The Father can- 
not be conceived without His Son, nor can the Son be 
conceived without the Father, and the Holy Ghost is 
altogether unthinkable without His common Spirators, 
the Father and the Son. St. Basil, and especially the 
Eleventh Council of Toledo (A.D. 675), particularly 
emphasized this logical aspect of the divine Perichoresis. 
“ Nec enim Pater absque Filio cognoscitur,” we read in 
its decrees, “nec sine Patre Filius invenitur; relatio 
quippe ipsa vocabuli personalis personas separari vetat, 
quas etiam, dum non simul nominat, simul insinuat. 
Nemo autem audire potest unumquodque istorum nomi- 
num, im quo non intelligere cogatur et alterum— For 
neither can the Father be known without the Son, nor 
the Son be found without the Father; for the relation 
indicated by the name of a person forbids us to separate 
the persons who are intimated, though not expressly 
named. And nobody can hear any one of these names 
without perceiving therein one of the others.” 1® Per- 
haps our Lord’s saying: “He that seeth me seeth the 
Father also. ... Do you not believe that I am in the 
Father, and the Father in me?” 2° — which Sabellius so 
egregiously misunderstood — must be interpreted in the 
light of these considerations, though both the context 
and the construction put upon it by the Fathers make 

19 Denzinger-Bannwart,  Enchiri- qui videt me, videt et Patrem.... 


dion, n, 281. Non creditis, quia ego in Patre et 
20 John XIV, 9 sq.: “Philippe, Pater in me est?” 


288 UNITY OF INEXISTENCE 


it more advisable to base the Perichoresis here expressed 
by Jesus, upon the notion of Tautousia rather than upon 
the divine Relations.** 


3. Docmatic IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE 
OF THE PrRICHORESIS.—The doctrine of the 
Trinitarian Perichoresis is of considerable dog- 
matic importance, because it tersely and lumi- 
nously expresses the two salient aspects of the 
dogma of the Blessed Trinity, viz... Trinitas in 
Unitate and Unitas in Trinitate, thus equally dis- 
countenancing the heresy of Monarchianism on 
the one hand, and that of Tritheism on the other. 
In matter of fact Perichoresis involves two 1m- 
portant truths: (1) that there is a real distine- 
tion between the Three Divine Persons, and (2) 
that the Divine Nature, or Essence, in spite of 
the Hypostatic distinctions, is absolutely one. 
Sabellius, by welding the Three Persons into 
One, practically denied the dogma of mutual In- 
existence, while the Tritheists, who imagined the 
Divine Essence to consist of three Gods, found 
themselves unable to admit a real indwelling of 
the One in the Other.” 


We shall meet with a similar phenomenon in 
Christology, though the order is there reversed. 


21 Cfr. St. Athanasius, Conir. in unigenito; alter ab altero et 


Arian., Or. 3, 3- uterque unum; non duo unus, sed 
22 Cfr. St. Hilary, De Trinit., 111, alius in alio, quia non aliud in utro- 
4: “Quod in Patre est, hoc et im que.” 


Filio est; quod in ingenito, hoc et 


ied a 


' BEARING OF PERICHORESIS 289 


The Perichoresis of the two Natures in Christ 
can be conceived only in virtue of the Hypostatic 
Union from which it springs. It postulates a 
perfect and unalloyed duality together with ab- 
solute oneness of Person and an indivisible unity 
in spite of the Saviour’s twofold Nature. For 
this very reason the doctrine of Perichoresis fur- 
nishes a powerful weapon for the defence of the 
faith against such extreme Christological heresies 
as Nestorianism and Adoptianism on the one 
hand, and Monophysitism and Monotheletism on 
the other. 

The doctrine of the Perichoresis fittingly con- 
cludes the treatise on the Trinity, because it 
represents the final upshot of the whole dis- 
cussion and clearly and luminously brings out 
both aspects of the dogma, viz.: the Trinitas in 
Unitate and the Unitas in Trinitate. At the 
same time it forms an invincible bulwark against 
all Antitrinitarian heresies, guarding as it does 
the Trinity of the Divine Persons against the 
Monarchians and Unitarians, and the unity of 
‘the Divine Nature against the various T'ritheistic 
sects. 


READINGS: — Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. I, §123, Freiburg 
1873.— Oswald, Trinitaétslehre, §14, Paderborn 1888— *Franze- 
lin, De Deo Trino, thes. 14, Romae 1881.— Kleutgen, De Ipso 
Deo, pp. 694 sqq., Ratisbonae 1881.—*Chr. Pesch, Praelect. 
Dogmat., Vol. II, ed. 3a, pp. 330-343, Friburgi 1906.— St. Thomas, 
S. Theol., 1a, qu. 42, art. 5.— Petavius, De Trinit., IV, 16. 


290 UNITY OF INEXISTENCE 


On the practical and devotional value of the dogma of the 
Divine Trinity cfr. F. J. Hall, The Trinity, pp. 289 sqq.; Wil- 
helm-Scannell, 4 Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol. I, pp. 351 
sqq.; H. P. Liddon, The Divinity of Our Lord, pp. 659 sqq. 


Ne tee ee eee 


APPENDIX 


NOTE ON THE TRINITARIAN TEACHING OF 
ST. IRENALUS 


(See page 141) 


An ancient Armenian translation has lately been dis- 
covered of a long-lost work of St. Irenzus, mentioned 
by Eusebius.*. It is a treatise addressed to ‘“‘ Brother 
Marcian.” The Archimandrite Carapet has published it 
under the title “ Proof! of the Apostolic’ Preaching,’ * 
The author’s aim in this treatise is “not to confute 
heretics, but to confirm the faithful by expounding the 
Christian doctrine to them, and notably by demonstrating 
the truth of the Gospel by means of the Old Testament 
prophecies.” * In this hitherto unknown treatise* St. 
Irenzus says: ‘‘ Thus is the Lord the Father and Lord 
the Son, and God the Father and God the Son; for He 
who is born of God is God. Consequently, according to 
His being and the power of His essence, there is known 


one God, but according to the economy of our salvation >” 


strictly and properly both Son and Father. For since the 
Father is above all invisible and inapproachable for crea- 
tures, those who are predestined to approach God must 
be won and conquered for the Father by the Son... . 


ROPE SEE COLES. V git 20: 8 A. Poncelet, in the Catholic 
2In Texte und Untersuchungen, Encyclopedia, Vol. VIII, p. 131. 
edited by Harnack and Schmidt, 4Ch. 47. 


Vol. 31, No. 1, Leipzig, 1907. 
291 


292 APPENDIX 


And the ointment (Ps. xlv, 8) is the Spirit, with which 
He is anointed.” 

Harnack * comments upon this text as follows: ‘ Such 
a characteristically ‘Nicene passage’ is hardly to be 
found in the Adversus Haereses ; but we need not assume 
an interpolation. It is not in accord with the teaching of 
the Nicene Council that the distinction between Father 
and Son is based solely on the economy of the Redemp- 
~ tion (a kind of Modalism, as in Adv. Haer.). This con- 
ception is ante-Nicene, ante-Origenist, and Irenzan. 
Neither is the ‘ anointment by the Spirit’ a Nicene con- 
ception.” 

It must be admitted that St. Irenzus in the text under 
consideration is not as explicit as were the Nicene writers 
in basing the personal distinction between the Father and 
the Son upon the eternal generation of the Son from the 
Father ; but neither is he wrong in basing that distinction 
upon the “economy of the Redemption.” For the In- 
carnation and the Redemption are the very best de facto 
arguments for the existence of the Logos-Son as the sec- 
ond Person of the Most Holy Trinity. If this be a sort 
of Modalism, fairness compels us to point out that it is 
not Modalism in the Sabellian sense, because St. Irenzus 
in the very same passage plainly traces the distinction be- 
tween the Father and the Son to the fact of the latter’s 
“being born of God.” 

Hence, pace Professor Harnack, the publication of St. 
Irenzus’ treatise “ Proof of the Apostolic Preaching ” 
confirms the traditional Catholic teaching on the Trinity. 


DOG Cl DacOLs 


INDEX 


A 
ABELARD, 244, 
Abraham, 20, 69. 
Accident, 221. 
Adoptive Sonship, 50 sq. 
ayevynola, 237. 
dkordovOla Kara rip Tag, III, 


249. 
Alexander, Bishop of Alexan- 
dria, 153. 
Alexander of Hales, 223. 
Alexandria, Council of (A.D. 
RO2 227,277. 
Ambrose, St., 2, 156, 159, 206, 


283. 
Amphilochius, St., 155. 
Analogues to show the like- 

ness of the Trinity in the 

created universe, 196 sqq., 

204. 

Anathematisms of Pope St. 

Damasus I, 166. 

Angel of Jehovah, 12 sqq. 
Angels, The, 57. 
Angelus Domini, 13. 


_ Annunciation, The, 23. 


Anselm of Havelsburg, 180. 
Anselm, St., 156, 230, 232. 
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Their 
faith in the Trinity, 139 
sqq.; Vague expressions, 142 
sqq.; Some of doubtful or- 
thodoxy, 149 sqq. 
Antitrinitarianism, 3, 114 sqq. 
Antitrinitarians, 48, 114 sqq. 
dmvevoTia, 242. 
Apostles’ Creed, 119, 134. 
Apparitio, 252. 


Appropriatio, 244. 
Appropriations, The Divine, 
205, 244 sqq. 
quo alius et qui ab alio, 241. 
Arius and Arianism, 18, 92, 123 
$qq.5) 120," 153!'sq:,\), 20%, 266, 
270. 


wissen 184, 188, 205, 237, 

246. 

dpxn ris dpxis, 205, 237, 246. 

Athanasian Creed, 2, 5, 120, 
166, 171, 238 sq. 

Athanasius, St., 14, 122, 152, 
154, 158, 160, 182, 201, 227, 
267, 270, 271, 273, 284, 285. 

Athenagoras, 140. 

“ Auctorem fidei” Bull, 262. 

Augustine, St. 2, \11,..14, 27) 35, 
69, 156, 150, 166, 178, 188, 
196, 197, 203, 204, 207, 209, 
215, 216, 246, 265, 270, 273, 
277. 


B 


BACHIARIUS, 42. 

Baptism of Christ, 24; In the 
name of the Trinity, 26; In 
Christ’s name alone, 78 sq. 

Baptismal Form, 25 sq., 134. 

Bardenhewer, O., 151, 156, 183. 

Basil, St., 14, 155, 164, 182, 183, 
203, 238, 272, 287. 

Batiffol, 152. 

Bede, St., 36. 

Bellarmine, Card., 160. 

Bernard, St., 206. 

Bessarion, Card., 179; 184, 186. 

Billuart, 215, 217, 230. 


293 


204 


Blasphemy, 108 sq. 
Boéthius, 225. 
Bryennios, Philoteus, 134. 


C 


CAIPHAS, 54. 

Callistus, Pope, St., 151. 

Caput Damnamus, 258. 

Cassiodorus, 39. 

Celsus, 200. . 

Chalcedon, Council of, 170. 

Charlemagne, 171. 

Christ, See Jesus Christ. 

Christology, 288, 280. 

Chrysostom, St. John, 14, 188, 
267. 

Circumincessio, 281. 

Clement of Alexandria, 141, 
143. 

Cologne, Provincial Council of 
(A. D. 1860), 196, 262. 

Comma Ioanneum, The, 30 sqq. 

Consciousness as a note of 
Personality, 226. 

Constantine Dragases, 173. 

Constantinople, Councils of, 
169, 183, 257; Conquest of, 
I 


73- 

Consubstantiality of the Three 
Divine Persons, 255 sqq. 

Cousin, 226. 

Credere alicui —credere in ali- 
quem, 75 sq. 

_ Cudworth, 260. 
“Cum quorundam,’ Apostolic 
Constitution, 119. 

Cyprian, St., 36 sq., 38. 

Cyril of Alexandria, St., 2, 11, 
14, 186, 278, 286. 

Cyril of Jerusalem, St., 270. 

D 

DAMASCENE, See John Damas- 
cene. 

Damasus, Pope, 36, 127, 120, 
166. 

David, 20. 

Decretum pro Tacobitis, 229, 
232,276, 283. 


INDEX 


Demiurge, 152, 247. 

Deus de Deo, 158. 

Didache, 134, 150. 

Taras the Blind, 2, 155 sq., 
185. 

Dionysius, Pope, 122, 142, 257. 

Dionysius the Great, of Alex- 
andria, 121, 122, 257. 

Ditheism, 117, 122, 151, 272. 

Divinity of Christ, 63 sqq. 

Docetism, 140. 

Donum Dei, 208, 246. 

Doxologies, The Trinity in the 
ancient Christian, 135 sq.; 
Rom. ix, 5, 85. 

Duns Scotus, 189, 190, 214 sq., 
230, 201; 

Durandus, 261. 

Dyotheletism, 280. 


E 
Eis 70 dvoua, 26, 78, 134. | 


exmopevois, 168, 

éxrige, 157, 

éx Tov warpés, 126, 

év dvouart, 26, 78. 

Epiphanius, St., 18s. 
Epipodius, St., 137. 

Epistles, The Trinity in the, 28 


sqq. 
Epistula ad Flavianum, 36. 
‘Emi r@ évduart, 26, 78. 
Eunomians, 146, 270. 
Euplus, St., 138. 
Eusebius, 14. 


F 


Facunpus of Hermiane, 37. 

Father, God the, 44 sqq. 

Fatherhood, God’s, 44, 180, 232. 

Faydit, 269. 

Fecundity of the Divine In- 
tellect, 204. 

Filiatio adoptiva, 50. 

Filioque, 128, 169, 170 sqq. 

Filius Dei, 51. 

Florence, Council of, 172, 183, 
184, 186, 189, 229, 230, 231. 


| Forma servi—forma Det, 62. 


INDEX 


Franks, The, 171. 

Franzelin, Card., 40, 87, 144. 

Soa ae St. (of Ruspe), 38, 
176. 

Fundamental Law of the Trin- 
ity, 230 sqq. 

Funk, F. X., 134, 150. 


G 


GALILEI, Galileo, 33. 

Geissel, Card., 262. 

VEVNTOS VS, YEVYNTOS, 124, 237. 

Generation, Of the Son by the 
Father, 162 sqq.; By mode 
of understanding, 202; Dif- 
ference between G. and Spi- 
ration, 209 sqq.; Definition of 
term, 210; Active and pas- 
sive, 228. 

yévynots, The Divine, 72; Was 
it “ voluntary ”? 146; yévynous 
and ‘yévnots, 148; Only true 
generation in the strict sense, 
162 sq.; A purely eae a) 
process, 167, 202 sq 

Ghost, Holy, See Holy. Ghost. 

Gloria Patri, The, 136. 

Gospels, The Trinity in the, 
23 sqq. 

Goths, The, 170. 

Greek Schism, Heresy of the, 
168 sqq., 235. 

Gregory of Nazianzus, 155, 158, 
ES 2045" 272: 


Gregory of Nyssa, 155, 184, 
273 Sq. 

Gregory of Valentia, 214. 

Gregory Thaumaturgus, Pri- 
vate symbolum of, 2, 135, 


552) 
Gregory the Great, 14. 
Grotius, Hugo, 51. 
Giinther, Anton, 3) 106) (220; 
244, 250, 262, 279, 280. 


H 


HapriAn I, 172. 
Halitus Dei, 206. 


295 


Harnack, Adolph, 4, 201, 2609. 
Hegel, 3, 108. 

Hermas, 150 sq. 

Hilary, St., 2, 14, 165, 187, 286. 


Hippolytus, St., 117, 121, 148, 


151; 

Holy Ghost, The, In the O. T., 
18 sqq.; In the N. T., 96 sqq.; 
The Paraclete, 99 sqq.; Hy- 
postatic Difference between 
Him and the Father and the 
Son, 101 sqq.; Immanent ori- 
gin ‘of the, 103; Divinity of 
the, 104 sq.; Divine Attri- 
butes ascribed to Him in S. 
Scripture, 105 sqq.; Entitled 
to Divine worship, 108 sq.; 
The Name “ God’ applied to 
Him, 109 sqq.; Procession of 
the, from the Father and 
the Son, 168 sqq.; “ Oscu- 
lum Patris et Filu,’ 206; Do- 
num Dei, 208; Infecundity 
of, 242. 

Holy Office, Congr. of the, On 
the Comma lIoanneum, 32 
sq.; Binding force of its de- 
cisions, 33. 

Hormisdas, Pope, 171. 

Hunneric, King, 38. 

Hurters He CS .4 87. 

Hypostasis, 122, 220 sqq., 227. 

Hypostatic Love, 207. 


I 


"Tdumspara, 236, 

Ignatius of Antioch, St., 140. 

Imago SS. Trinitatis, 196. 

Incarnation, The, 20, 250. 

Indemonstrability of the mys- 
tery of the Trinity, 194 sqq. 

Indwelling, 252. 

Infecundity of the Holy Ghost, 


242. 
Innascibility, 237. 
In nomine, 26 sq. 
Inspirabilitas, 242. 
Irenzus, St., 140, 143, 148, 201 
sq. 
Isaias, 15, 20. 


296 
J 


JEHOVAH, II. 

Jerome, St., 14, 36, 39, 152, 185, 
195, 200, 

Jesus Christ, Baptism of, 24; 
Discourse at the last Supper, 
24, 102 sq.; The Son of God, 

49 saq.,. His Divine’::Son- 
ship, 49 sqq.; His Primo- 
geniture, 60 sq.; His Con- 
substantiality with God, 61 
sq.; His Divinity, 63 sqq.; 
Divine attributes of, 63 sqq.; 
His title to divine honors, 73 
sqq.; Baptism in His name, 
78 sq.;  Expressly called 
“God” in §. Scripture, 79 


sqq. 

Joachim of Flora, 39, 256, 258. 

John Damascene, St., 188, 225. 

John, St. (the Evangelist), 18, 
31, 56 sq.; 88 sqq. 

John the Baptist, ror sq. 

Justin I, Emperor, 171. 

Justin Martyr, St., 143, 144. 


K 


KABBALISM, 199. 

Kleutgen, Jos. (S. J.), 40, 108. 
Kruger, 4. 
xrigew, 158. 
krigua Tov Qeov, 152, 157. 
Kunstle, Karl, 41. 


L 


LATERAN Council (of 649), 2; 
(of 1215), 41, 172, 256, 258, 
Bae, 

Leo the Great, 36. 

Leo ‘XIIT, 100. 

Libri XII de Trinitate, 273. 

Locke, John, 226. 

Logos, The, In the O. T. the- 
Ophanies irae Stl) Tongs 
teaching on 59, 88 sqq.; The 


Monarchians on the, 116 sq.;' 


Arian teaching on the, 124; 
Endiathetic and Prophoric, 


INDEX 


147; Definition of the term, 
202. 
Adyos €vdidberos — mpopopixds, 
147. 
Loisy, Alfred, 34, 52. 
Lully, Raymond, 198, 270. 
Lyons, Ecumenical Council of 
CAN DN 1274) t92, 281. 


M 


MACEDONIANS, 123, 


159, 160, 

Ae y 

Macedonius, 124 sq., 154 sq. 

Malchion of Antioch, 118 sq. 

Manifestations of the Trinity, 
Outward, 247. 

Mark of Ephesus, 172. 

Martin I, 2, 275. 

Martyrs, Their profession of 
the Trinity, 137 sqq. 

Mastrofini, Marcus, 108. 

Maternity, Why there is none 
in the Godhead, 166 sq. 

Melchisedechians, 116. 

Memrah, 18. 

Mercury Trismegistus, 199. 

Messianic Psalms, 15 sq. 

Messias, The future, as true 
God, 15° sq.) 52. 

wia ovola Kal rpeis trocrdces, 
227,:271 sq. 

Michael, Archangel, 151. 

Michael Caerularius, 170. 

Milton, 147. 

Missio, 175. 

Missions, The Divine, 175, 176, 


248 sqq. 

Modalism, Sabellian, 120 sqq., 
te7) 

Molina, 230. 

Monarchianism, 115 sqq.; Dyn- 
amistic, 116 sq.; Patripassian, 
TEA $04) 220. 

Hovoyerys, 60. 

Monophysitism, 255, 256. 

Monotheism, 264 sq. 

Monotheletism, 275. 

Moppy dovdov, 62, 

Moses, 20, 58. 


INDEX 


Mystery, The Blessed Trinity 
a, 194 sqq. 


Names, Substantive, of God, 
245. 

Nature, 221. 

Nestorians, 169. 


Niczea, Council of, 132, 260, 
270. 

Nicene Creed, 125 sq., 129, 169, 
170. 


Noétus, II7 sq., 119, I5I. 
Notions, The Divine, 240 saq. 
Novatian, 145, 152, 187. 


O 


“Ouoovela, 59, III, 212, 270, 272, 
283. 

duoovotos 7@ TmarTpl, 22, 
126, 269, 271. 

Oppositio relationis, 230 sq. 

Ordo subsistendi, 111. 

Organic Conception of the 
Trinity, 187. 

Origen, II, 132, I5I sq. 

Osculum Patris et Filii, 206. 

Coswalds/\}.)b14 (258,281, 

ovola, 22, 122, 221 sq. 


122) Sq; 


1a 


PAN-CurIsTISM, Priscillian’s, 
42 

mavroxpatwp, Christ the, 68. 

Paraclete, The, 99 sqq. 

mapakhyTOos, 99 sq. 

maoxev, 228. 

Paternity, See Fatherhood. 

a as Monarchianism, 
II7 sq 

Paul, St, Epilogue to the Sec- 
ond Epistle to the Corin- 
thians, 29; His teaching on 
the spiritual gifts and charis- 
mata, 29 sq.; On Christ’s Di- 
vine Sonship, 56 sq.; On the 
-Primogeniture of Christ, 60 
‘sq.; His distinction between 
forma servi and forma Dei, 
62; Meets the disciples of 


297 


John the Baptist at Ephesus, 
IOI sq.; On the outward 
manifestations of the Trin- 
ity, 247; On the Trinitarian 
Perichoresis, 282. 

Paul of Samosata, 116, 118 sq., 
135. 

Patil Vi: tro, 

Perichoresis, 240, 208, 281 sqq. 

Person, Definition of, 224, 226. 


Personal Conception of the 
Trinity, 187. 
Personality, God’s threefold, 


Proved from S. Scripture, 10 
sqq.; Foreshadowed in the 
O. T.; 11 saq.; Taught in the 
NN. 0.22) saq.s.,bn the. Gos- 
pels, 23 sqq.; In the Epistles, 
28 sqq. 

Peshitta, The Syriac, 164. 

Petavius, 86, 143, 149, 169, 278, 
282. 

Peter, St., Prologue to the 
First Epistle of, 28; His pro- 
fession of faith in Christ’s 
divine Sonship, 53. 

Peter Lombard, 156, 256. 

Philo, 147, 190. 

Philoponus, John, 255, 256. 

Philosophoumena, II7, 121. 

Philosophy and the dogma of 
the Trinity, 199 sqq. 

Photinus of Sirmium, 117. 

Photius, 168, 169, 170. 

Pistoia, Council of, 262. 

Pius VI, 262. 

Pius IX, 199, 262. 

mrevua, TO aytov, O8. 

Pneumatomachians, 123, 125. 

mvevots, 168. 

moinua, 122, 128. 

Polycarp, St., 13 

Possibles, God's Aaks for the, 
218, . 

Praxeas, 118, 119. 

Primogeniture of Christ, 60 sq. 

Priscillian, 38, 41. 

Procession, Defined, 161; Of 
the Son from the Father, 162 
sqq.; St. Augustine’s com- 
parison of the Divine Pro- 


208 


cessions with human  self- 
knowledge and self-love, 197, 
204; They are purely spir- 


itual and immanent vital 
processes, 203 sq. 
Properties, The Trinitarian, 
236 sqq. 


mpocwrov, 120 sq., 225. 

Protestantism no longer holds 
the Christian idea of the 
Trinity, 2. 

T™pwTdoToKos, 60, 

Psalms, Messianic, 15 sq. 

Puteanus, 215. 


R 


RATIONALISTIC Distortions of 
the dogma of the Trinity, 3, 
199. 

Reason, The dogma of the 
Trinity in its relation to, 194 
sqq. 

Reccared, King, 170. 

Relationes Personifice, 232 sqq. 

Relations, The Divine, 220 sqq., 
228 sqq., 287. 

Rosmini, A., 198 sq. 

Ruiz, 198, 282. 


>, 


SABELLIUS, 120, I2I, I5I, 225, 
229, 205,270, 272. 

Sabinus of Heraclea, 269. 

St. Victor, Richard of, 108. 

Sanctification, 251. 

Sanctity, Divine, 207. 

Sapiential Books of the O. T., 
Traces of the Trinity in, 16 


sqq. 
Schafer, Al., 37, 40. 

oxéces, 228. 

Scheeben, Jos., 187. 

Schepps, G., 35. 
Schleiermacher on the Trinity, 


4. 
Schopenhauer, Arthur, 200. 
Seleucia,’ Council of . (A, D. 

AIO) a72: 

Semi-Arianism, 124. 


Terminology, 


INDEX 


Shepherd of Hermas, 150 sq. 

Siehis |, V36 

Socinians, 3. 

Son of God, Uses of the term, 
49 sqq.; Consubstantial with 
God, 61 sqq. 

Son, God the, 49 sqq.. 

Sonship, Christ’s Divine, 46, 49 


saq. 4) 
Sophronius, St., 257. 
Speculative Problems, 213 sqq. 
Spiration, 187, 205 sqq., 209 
$0.) /228./ 2394) 
Spirator, Objective character 
of the, 234. 
Spiritus, 97, 174, 206. 
Spiritus Dei, 19, 97, 174. 
Spiritus Filit, 174, 175. 
Strauss, David F., 200. 
Stiirmer, Pl. (O. S. B.), 269. 
Suarez, 217, 250, 282. 
Subordinationism, 123 sqq. 
Substance, 220. 
Succession, Temporal, vs. suc- 
cession as to origin, 217. 
Summa res, 258. 
Suppositum, 224 sq. 


if 


TavTovola, 2509, 200, ‘270, «272, 
274, 283, 284, 288. 

i Difficulties of 
forming a theological, 227. 
Hertullians);1,°'37,. 362.110, Lar, 

143, 146, 148, 187. 
Tetragrammaton, The, 7o. 
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 169. 
Theodoret, 169. 

Theodotus of Byzantium, 116, 

LES)  LSie 
Theodotus the Younger (the 

Money-changer), 116. 

“ Theologie der Vorzeit,’ 108. 

Theophanies, The O. T., 12 
sqq., 250. 

Theophilus, St., 1, 148. 

Thomas (the Apostle), 82. 

Thomas Aquinas, St., 156, 188, 
189, 194, 208, 212, 215, 216, 


INDEX 


220, 230, 240,241, 244, 251, 
261, 284. 

Thomists, 215. 

Toledo, 3rd Council of, 170; 
Lith, Councilof, 5,. 207, 238, 


251, 287; Synod of (A.D. 
447), 171. 

Totietas mM Se, 223. 

Tpias, 22. 


Tpias Tedela, 2, 

Tridentine Decree “De Cano- 
nicis Scripturis” and the 
Comma Ioanneum, 40. 

Trinitas, Term, first used by 
Theophilus and Tertullian, 
1; Adopted by the Church, 
22: 

Trinity, Chief points of the 
dogma of the Divine, 6; The 
dogma foreshadowed in the 
O. T., 11 sqq.; but not clearly 
revealed, 20; Clearly taught 
inienes)|N. 1.22 sqq.*' In the 
Gospels, 23 sqq.; In the Epis- 
tles, 28 sqq.; New Testament 
texts treating of the Divine 
Persons severally, 43 saq.; 
The Trinity in Tradition, 113 
sqq.; Formulation of the 
dogma, 129; Positive Tradi- 
tion of the first four centu- 
Mes, 132 \sqq.;., The. ‘Trinity 
in the liturgy of the Church, 
133 sq.; In the Doxologies, 
135 sq.; In the Confessions 
of the Martyrs, 137 sqq.; In 
the Ante-Nicene Fathers, 139 
sqq.; In the Nicene and Post- 
Nicene Fathers, 153 sqq.; 
The Principle of the, 161 
sqq.; Procession of the Son, 
162 sqq.; Procession of the 
Holy Ghost, 168 sqq.; Spec- 
ulative theological develop- 
ment of the dogma of the 


209 


Trinity, 192 sqq.; The dogma 
in its relation to reason, 104 
sqq.; Christian concept of the 
Trinity as opposed to the so- 
called ethnic trinities, 199; 
Consubstantiality of the 
Three Divine Persons, 255 
sqq.; Oneness of their ex- 
ternal operation, 275 sqq. 
Trisagion of Isaias, 12. 
Tritheism, 255 sqq., 272. 
Triunity, 2. 
Turrianus, 215. 


U 


Una natura et tres personae, 
227, 

Unigenitus, 60. 

Unitarianism, 3, 119. 


V 


VASQUEZ, 215. 

Vaughan, Card., 41. 

Verbum Dei, See Adyos. 

Vestigia SS. Trinitatis, 196. 

Vigilius of Tapsus, 42, 273. 

Vincent, Deacon, 1238. 

Vincenzi, 152. 

Vulgate, The Latin, 31, 36, 40, 
41. 


W 
Warp, Wilfrid, 41. 
Weyman, 152. 
Wisdom, Begotten, 16 sq. 
Witnesses, The three heavenly, 


31 sqq. ora 
Worship of the Trinity, 247 


sq. 


uz 
ZEPHYRIN, Pope, 121. 


NAN) aah 
eta aty 
pce ee 


sat 


} G 
a 


hike ‘ j 
Mae 


i 


ie 


ha 


Date Due 


ATALAEREGEVATOANE 


BIS , 

oO? 3 

re are = a id 
| = 3 
—— Cf 
| 


1987 


@ 


= i 


SE2 “8 
JUL 9.4 


os 


wy ay 


04 


I 


| 


O 
N 
a 
© 
— 
: a 


acing ke Boe 


Solel a posed 


arrears retort tintinths bee 
eee ie beng 


a 


fetta tae te 
Wiss tats ea nse 
as 


porte 
ree 


~ 


noite Beineg heh g Tales Se Bodlp Fl 
et 


